[irrelig]Well, it is finished. We have given up the ghost. Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit. As promised, we appeared on the Evidence 4 Faith live radio broadcast to debate the two hosts of the show, and they have convinced us of the truth of Christianity. Because of this, Leighton is scheduled to be burned at the stake next Tuesday.
94 Responses to “87: Evidence 4 Faith Debate”
Those guys from Evidence for Faith were lame.
“The best reason for believing in Christianity is because it is true.”
It might look good on a bumper sticker, but…
Since the host chuckled over John Smiths un-prophetlike antics, I thought for sure the argument would be over the divinity of Jesus and the proof of miracles. Since these guys specifically fir Christianity, I was shocked Jesus’ name never came up. But I guess you guys had to start at the top. Great show, thanks for this bonus episode!
Since the host chuckled over John Smiths un-prophetlike antics, I thought for sure the argument would be over the divinity of Jesus and the proof of miracles. Since these guys specifically fir Christianity, I was shocked Jesus’ name never came up. But I guess you guys had to start at the top. Great show, thanks for this bonus episode!
Not much to say except damn good job. You two were very well spoken and intelligent.
I chuckled at the bit where Chuck’s audio went on the fritz and the host tried to score a couple quick points off Leighton before Chuck could back on the line.
“The more people stay out in the sunshine, the more disordered they get.” Huh? Solar energy harms life on Earth? The whole entropy “argument” is making my brain hurt.
I loved when the guy listed off various absurd and debunked arguments for the existence of god. He did mention one I’ve never heard of before: he said PET scanners show the existence of the soul. I’ve never heard that one before and a quick search doesn’t show anything. On the face of it, it’s obviously a false claim (using conventional definitions of “soul”). Any idea what he was talking about?
Great job, Chuck.
Okay, for the next debate get a single, distinct topic and anyone who wanders away from it gets slapped with a fish by the moderator, preferably a member of the Monty Pythons
I enjoyed this show as much as any you’ve done and II wanted to drop in a little help on their “Everything that begins to exist has a cause”. That “Law” is true for our Universe, but it is NOT proven for things outside the Universe. So when one says “Everything has a Cause”, You simply revise the premise to “Everything IN OUR UNIVERSE needs a cause”. Everything beyond the Universe is simply unknown and we don’t know if it applies.
Very nicely done! I did sense a bit of tension in the Evidence for Faith guys near the end though. More shows like this.
It really felt like these other hosts were trying really hard to state that christianity is true because of a dozen debunked arguments (some of which are really internally inconsistent when juxtaposed or presented simultaneously). Basically, Leighton, Chuck, you did awesome. I would have h=just gotten frustrated but you were gentlemen, props to you
Also,
‘I think the kalam cosmological argument is the strongest case for god”
gave me a good laugh
I think my download cutoff early because I never heard their evidence(s) for faith, more specifically in Christianity. Even more asinine is the fact that the discussion on God’s existence didn’t start until 40 minutes into the show. I felt Leighton won the debate, but I was left with the impression that Chuck and Leighton were holding back punches while the E4F douches simply failed to prove the existence of a theist God.
I was also disappointed that Chuck never once called God/Jesus a dick, dick-face, or any variation of penis synonyms. Leighton, great job carrying Irreligiosophy to victory, but where was your heterosexism, masturbation commentary, and use if the word retard?
oh my god.
I can’t… I can’t even …
What the fuck? These guys have a regular radio show? Seriously? SERIOUSLY?
Ironic that religious people ever go to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Ideologically speaking, isn’t Christianity a closed system(I’m glad they didn’t, btw, but they kind of stuck up for it)? Where’s the new knowledge? Where’s the new evidences? Where’s the new arguments? Eventually that social energy is going to diminish and it’s going to fizz out intellectually.
Wow a lot of new people it seems, you guys must be cracking near the 30 listeners mark. Congrats
I know that what I am about to suggest would have been way off topic. ———- What I would like to have heard was for Chuck and Leighton say is, “We know that you prayed for God’s guidance before the show. You have a personal relationship with God who’s knowledge is infinite, you know he wants you to deliver the message to all the world and save every soul. Take a moment to ask him again for words that will change people’s minds and hearts. Let his infinite power and love present itself through you to our common audience right now. We will count the testimonials as they pour into the Irreligiosophy forum and let you know the number of converts. In turn could you tell us the number of people expressing enlightened views because of our arguments? All we have to rely on for guidance is our soulless and evolving brains. Expect good things as God overwhelms your spirits and directs your voices, guys. The count comparison maybe the very evidence that Leighton and I are in need of.” ———- A count of zero to zero would be affirming to me, Radiodays.
On another note.
Chuck books, talks, movies are “titled” not “entitled”.
http://www.agriculture.purdue.edu/agcomm/ontarget/0506/GrammarTraptitledvs.entitled.htm
“Example: Hugh Jim Bissell is giving a talk entitled, “What’s Wrong with This Sentence?”
You’ve read sentences like this a million times, but “entitled” is the wrong word choice.
Most often, “entitled” means one has a right or claim to something. As in, “Americans are entitled to free (albeit grammatically warped) speech.”
And yes, “entitle” can mean to give a title to something, but does not refer to the title itself. …
Or entitle can mean to confer a title on a person. As in, “The queen entitled Sir Loin of Beef at a state dinner.”
In other words, do not use “entitled” before the name of a book, lecture, article, diary entry, speech, poem, rodeo, etc”
I enjoyed how everybody did not want to go too deep into the 2nd Law, and then it took up about the last quarter of the show.
Maybe you guys can go on Mars Hill next
People who don’t understand thermodynamics should not talk about it.
The Faith guys sounded like idiots.
Once life starts, it can violate the 2nd Law?
Where do people get this kinda shit?
Wow, I guess there is a god. Leighton had the E4F guys on the ropes, and they were saved by the bell. I witnessed a miracle, therefore god exists.
I believe you (C & L) mentioned that the E4F guys have pledged to appear on Irreligiosophy at some future date. If that is true, please consider the following:
Grant E4F the premise that their is a god, and that this god is the cause of everything that exists (known and unknown). I’d like to hear their arguement as to why this god is the Christian God recounted in the Holy Bible. Let them bring forth their three or four best evidences for this truth, and the specific biblical/historical references that support these claims.
I think this would liven the debate. It may provide a different context to the same old, retred philosophical arguements that are bandied about, but don’t move the dial much.
Sorry guys but after having turned me on to a wonderful new podcast, I might not be listening to yours as much. I have listened to a half dozen of the Evidence 4 Faith shows and they are funny beyond belief. I listened to one about how stupid atheists are, you poor slobs, and then another about how stupid evolution is; those stupid Darwinists! They used all the same, stupid arguements to justify Intelligent Design. A watch found on the shore or a tornado going thru a junk yard building an airliner. I haven’t laughed so hard since your Boyd Packer little factories podcat. Thanks guys!
It scares me that one of the Christer-debators was a physician.
This is how I have always refuted the lame invocation by Jebus lovers of the 2nd law of thermodynamics: while it is true the second law of thermodynamics states that the universe as a whole is ever increasing in disorder (entropy). The second law does not state, however, that nothing can ever increase in order, but only that a decrease in one part must be accompanied by a greater increase in entropy in another. Two gametes, for example, can fuse and begin a complicated process in development that represents a long-term local decrease in entropy, but at the same time that embryo is pumping heat out into its environment and increasing the entropy of the surrounding bit of the world.
So the E4F guy that stated the 2nd law can be violated once life starts is fucking clueless. But, since they casually stated that “irreducible complexity” is solid evidence that evolution is false, what else could I expect???
I find it interesting that Joseph Smith was denounced as a prophet because all his prophecies did not come true, soon followed by a comment that prophecies made by prophets in the Bible came true hundreds of years later. I wonder how many people soon after the deaths of those Bible prophets proclaimed them false because those prophecies did not come true within their life time?
Debating with such idiocy takes a certain skill, so that you can engage them (and their supporters) but yet not get sucked into their vapid nonsense. It’s like trying to wrestle with an opponent made from whipped cream. It’s not as easy as it looks/sounds. I thought you did an excellent job.
Well done. I think Chuck, Matt Dillahunty and Chris Hitchins should go on a road trip together with a documentary crew filming their interactions with christains. You should also go visit Emperor Palpatine (aka the pope) and have a chat.
Oh, and BTW, when I heard the name of their radio show ‘Evidence for Faith’ I had a good chuckle. What a fucking oxymoron. Faith = belief without evidence. LOL
I loved when they gave a list of all the arguments for the existence of god. I think I was familiar with about 90% of them and knew them all to be crap with obvious refutations.
One wonders if the UFO guy will ever realise he has just done the same thing again. There seems to always be some people that are just so much more susceptible to bizarre beliefs.
Um, “very unique”? What, as opposed to, say, run of the mill unique?
I just listened to this episode the other day and you guys cleaned the floor with them. You had challenging answers for everything they brought up. My favorite portion was where Chuck pinned them down on Plantinga’s philosophy in detail; I thought their claim that he swung everything back in the direction for likelihood of a god was stupendously questionable, especially in light of all the scientific work that has been done since Plantinga said, most glaring of which being S. Hawking’s entire career.
That said, I think your interlocutors comported themselves respectfully and perhaps the best I have ever heard Christian foils do so. They had decent answers of their own, just not sufficiently critical ones. I was also skeptical of the one gentleman’s claim that he used to be agnostic, but that’s beside the point.
All in all, great job guys. I think you showed those who may be curious out there and unfamiliar with the show, who may come here, that the blatant irreverence and open criticism does not come from a cynically uneducated place.
I think the best aspect of this episode is that it introduced, by name, many of the theories, claims, hypothesis, philosophy, etc. which both sides use to support their claim. This would be useful to the person who is not familiar with them.
Nothing focused, nothing discussed in depth, except why Mormonism is absurd.
Since Evidence4faith.com hosts don’t agree with Mormonism either, everybody was patting each other on the back for not believing in Mormonism. I wanted to pat you on the back!
If you meet up with them again, please use a moderator, otherwise I will end up wasting my time (again) listening to the next show.
Thanks for inspiring me to listen to more E4F podcasts.
I’m going to miss those neurons!
I would like to comment here with Leighton’s comment, I am a computer programmer with a background in Analog/Digital Electronics. I know a ton of programmers with belief, but many of us question if not completely, its often an open dialog; myself, i do not believe.
Anybody listened to The newest E4F yet? It’s an analysis from last weeks debate. I’m downloading it now but I won’t get the chance to listen to it until tomorrow.
Thanks for the heads up. We may do a “Debate Analysis Analysis” for this week’s podcast.
@RadioDays: No, you are wrong. You can of course find plenty of pedants to support your point of view, but it is totally unsupported by usage, or by most language folks, such as Patricia T. O’Connor http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2007/12/is-it-titled-or-entitled.html
Your attempt to say that “entitled” cannot be used for books, etc. because it is used for something else is specious. English words can have many, many, even umpteen meanings.
Cool debate, arguably better than most debates I’ve heard between atheists and theists. Too bad Chuck had to “herd” Leighton towards the topics in question.
“Just remember, the best reason to become a Christian is because it’s true.” – LOL!!!
This was one of the best, guys, very well done. Chuck, you made them sound like uneducated fools, it’s awesome that you can do that so well to someone other than Leighton. Hell, even Leighton made them sound like fools, so maybe it’s not all that impressive…seriously, though. awesome job.
The pocast was good but just scratched the surface.Please do more in the debate format,focusing on particular topics.
I’m trying to access the debate analysis on their website, but am completely flummoxed that anyone would think that sort of menu mechanic was even remotely intelligent to use. I can’t even click on the item I want because it scrolls away from me every time I go near it. A perfect metaphor for Christian apologetics perhaps?
OK, I listened to it. Here is the complete rundown:
They spend the second half of the hour (not the whole 53 minutes) addressing the debate. And I must recant my praise for their behavior during the “debate”. They apparently masked their true degree of honesty (which seems to be rather low) during the debate, because they were highly dishonest and disingenuous during the “debate analysis”, which was nothing more than 27 minutes rebutting everything C&L said with every Christian fallacy, half-truth, misunderstanding, lie, and logic-free claim every atheist has ever heard. Go on down the line: Atheist regimes have killed the most people. CHECK! AGW is an international hoax. CHECK! Evolution is just another belief system without evidence. CHECK! Dissenters in the scientific community are immediately eschewed from their jobs. CHECK! Einstein was probably a theist (this seems to be the implication the way they talked about him). CHECK! Theists, especially Christian ones, are responsible for all the advances in Western civilization. CHECK! University professors are socialists. CHECK! Universities are indoctrinating our youth by “spoon-feeding” evolution to them. CHECK! The ClimateGate emails are proof of the AGW conspiracy. CHECK! The scientific community has a predetermined bias against research on religious grounds and accepting god as a basis to start from. CHECK!
Seriously. Every single one of the claims I cite them as having said occurs in 53 minutes, along with probably a few I missed. I’m almost surprised that Pascal’s Wager didn;t get any air time, because that was about all that was left to spew. And this is before they basically recite, dishonestly, every point they brought up in the debate, regardless of how thoroughly it was countered by C&L. They basically say that C&L were spouting atheist lies (that *is* the implication, no matter how softly they put it) either intentionally or unintentionally. And they basically say that C&L use faulty logic in starting from atheism rather than theism simply because their first theist indoctrination was discovered to be false, ergo all religion is not to be trusted. They admit openly they were unprepared for Chuck and Leighton’s arguments, and that they let the course of the debate wander a bit. Why is it Christians are never prepared when the debate is occurring, and only afterward when their foils are not invited into the inner sanctum?
E4F continues the tradition of Christian apologists behaving very dishonestly when confronted rationally. Every time I come across a Christian apologetic source that claims to take a more reasoned, logical, sensible tack for defending itself, I’m left with the same solid conservative political background that denies any form of scientific evidence whatsoever, denies contrary philosophy and factual record, recites its vapid claims over and over with increasing emphasis, and that lacks any real study to uphold it.
While I disagree with some commenters here that say not to bother listening, they are at least correct in assessing what the outcome was likely to be. This hour is another chalkboard-scraping, head-bludgeoning, wrist-slitting vomitfest of nearly every non-reasoned propagandistic red herring claim ever made by Christian theists in at least the last century. And they say all of this with the even keel voices of soft rock radio hosts. If their claims weren’t so disgustingly awful, this hour would sound like that SNL sketch from years back where Alec Baldwin and the other comedienne spoofed soft rock radio and said outrageous things on air. The only thing that was missing from this E4F hour was the laugh track.
They trumpeted out the causal universe argument, every action must have a cause. They hit it back with the spontaneous creation of matter out of virtual particles, but a simpler counter example is the decay of a nuclear particle. No action causes a radium atom to split. It is a simple closed system, and it spontaneously splits with no cause and with no provocation.
Easily the best podcast you guys have put out as can be evidenced by the number of comments. What sucks is the limited amount of time, because that debate could have gone on for a few more episodes.
I think the E4F guys are intentionally dishonest. I listened to their podcasts on global warming and evolution. Their science is horrible and they seem to purposely ignore evidence that contradicts their world view. They are an example of what is wrong with religion.
I would say don’t bother debating them in the future but then I thought about the listeners that listen to their podcast. You won’t change the hosts minds but I think you may help others find the “truth”. So I say tear them a new asshole and debate the shit out of them.
Love your podcast.