Fri, 3 April 2009
The Great Easter Debate 2009 We can be good enough without God Ian Bryce and Ian Powell Comments[39]
|
- Un autre hommage chef de la http://www.chaussuresdefootballstore.com - nike mercurial vapor classique, http://www.chaussuresdefootballstore.com - mercurial vapor pas cher que le niveau ancestrale de leurs produits ont été aimés snuff Sneaker, depuis 2009, Hiroshi Fujiwara, qui, après le lob, l'afflux de personnes est devenu une forme d'arme en plein air. Cet automne, relancé http://www.chaussuresdefootballstore.com - mercurial vapor superfly chaussures, flag beyond as a replacement for the most join in together à la première année de hand-out, les lacets avec une boucle D-ring.
- I had another question for Rev Ian. He was citing historians talking about Jesus. One of them i know was incorrect because it was written much later. As for the others, i have never heard anyone mention them. I trust the accuracy of historians like Bart Erhman and he made no such mention of historians mentioning the Christ of the bible.
- I will be short. I was frustrated no end with this debate. The question that begs for me is this - 40,000 years ago we essentially looked like we are today; with this in mind i ask the question to theists like Rev Ian (or anyone who has heard a good answer) - what happened in that 38,000 years before our \'saviour\' came to give us morals to live by? What system was used before the \'real\' god finally showed up? Side question - any idea what he was up to while he waited?
- I rather enjoyed the debate, actually. I think a lot of people forget that most people see this whole debate in different ways, so no one speaker is ever going to suit your thought patterns. I think I might go back through it before I make a serious post. But first,
Quote from Rev. Powell:
\"... evolutionary helpful ought - yes – but not one that has any ultimate legitimacy.\"
I would argue that Christian morality doesn\'t necessarily have ultimate legitimacy either. This ultimate legitimacy seems entirely dependent on whether god actually does exist. If god does not exist, all that has been done is the religious have asserted that their morality has \"ultimate legitimacy\".
On that note, Christian morality isn\'t the only one that claims ultimate legitimacy through the divine. How would you differentiate this from the claim of the divine nature of, say, Islamic morality? - I think its wise to not bring up someone else\'s speciality in your debate. The oppononent could then lie through his teeth and get away with it.
As far as making the grand mal of allusions was the \"atheist\" germans freeing a jewish child. Give me an example of any part of german society that wasnt Judophobic? Catholics and Lutherans alike, germans had been conditioned by their parents to hate these people.
Its a pity that that cracker wasnt brought in at the end.
I think Chris Hitchens\'s approach works very well in this forum. If you have to lead, lead hard and convert every try on your response. If you follow in the debate, work hard, give repsonses within your argument and nail them from the second they sit down.
Having had this experience and you would lean on doing it again, use christianities perfomance since year 30.
Cheers and good luck - I\'ve been listening in for some time to TSZ for some time after hearing Richard being interviewed on the SGU. I thouroughly enjoy listening to all the crew and appreciate the time and effort you all go to keep us updated on issues like the autism immunisation scare etc. the list goes on. I also really appreciate the different perpectives of \"The Grain of Salt\" segment.
As I\'ve grown up and moved in Anglican Christian circles for most of my life I am very familiar with the kind of arguments that the Rev\'d Ian used in his speech I can only venture to say that Skeptic Ian pretty much took a knife to a gun fight. It\'s always interesting whenever you take all your seemingly tried and tested points of view and lay them bare in the Market Place of Ideas. I mean no critisim of Ian Bryce and in fact I would like to express appreciation and thanks to him for taking the time to be involved in such and event regardless of who seemingly won the night.
I am new to skeptism myself and it has presented quite a few challeges personally especially as I find it virtually impossble to completely reverse a lifetime of religous upbringing in this regard but I have found the education in logical falacies and the general education in science an invaluable tool in sorting out the good stuff from the bad stuff so to speak.
I hope any future encounters like the two Ian\'s forms a constructive help for listeners on both sides.
All the best
Michael,
Launceston,
Tasmania - Hi All,
Long time listener of the show, first time commenter and all that - so firstly - well do all you boys and girls who produce the show.
You should be proud of yourself (as I am sure you are)
A nice mix of a show.
Now onto this ‘debate’… like a previous commenter here, I’m also ‘curious’ to why the TSZ has moved into the ‘religion debate’.
I’m all for a good debate on religion and anyone (or more) of the thousands of gods out there being prayed at today and years past.
In fact, it is how I waste most of my time on the internet these days and why, when I heard this thread mentioned on the latest podcast, I ‘rushed’ over here – I love such discussions.
However, I worry just a little.
Does TSZ really want to run the risk of turning people away from scepticism and the podcast because they are blasting away at their ‘scared cow’?
I suppose this really depends on the goals of the show – if it is to entertain and educate the ‘converted’ then perfect – attack those cows.
If it is to ‘win-over’ new sceptics, then I don’t know – could be shooting yourselves in the foot but maybe give it a shot and see what happens I suppose. The right target might be hit.
Anyway…
Now onto the debate itself and my tuppence worth (for what it is worth).
The problem with such debates is (in my opinion), as always, the question being debated and the assumptions made.
The question “We can be good enough without God” at first seems obvious.
“Of course we can” the atheist cries and we can show it with reason, from evolution and examples by the truck load – but we have fallen into a trap made by the theist I feel.
The theist morals, as they argue, cannot exist WITHOUT God.
That is ‘absolute morals’ – a theoretical point of reference that ‘good’ and ‘evil’ can be measured and compared – these require a God, a ‘lawmaker’ by the definition given by the theist.
So unless we can prove God does not exist (which I don’t think can be done) it would seem the atheist is always doomed to lose such a debate.
Anything and everything put forward as an alternative by the atheist will fail in the theist view since, by their definition remember, “morals cannot exist (or are relative or meaningless) without an absolute reference point and the ONLY reference point the theist will accept is God (their own personal God of course, not one of those foreign mucky dirty gods from across the sea - yuck.).
However, all is not lost in such debates for the non-believer...
If someone was to claim that ‘we’ are good because of unicorns – it isn’t for me to prove that unicorns do not exist, or that they do not form the basis of my morality.
Maybe a person really does believe that the ‘horn of the unicorn will always point to what is right’ or some other nonsense.
If they (the believer) made such a claim, we all know it is for them to back it up.
For the record, the theist Ian came across rather well in this debate, though as an Englishman, some of the jokes didn’t work for me :-)
Anyway… Keep up the good work helping with critical thinking.
And more such debates would be welcome by me
Lee
- I would suggest neither side 'won' the debate.
Leaving speaking style to the side, the topic suggested that the oft made accusation against atheists (that they lack a moral centre) be explored.
Is it *possible* to be good without god? Yes.
More interestingly is it *probable* ... yes and no (either with or without god)
It should be noted that ethics and morals have been debated independantly of supernatural and metaphysical realms for millennia.
And our legal systems are NOT based on the Bible. (now that would be a great debate).
>> while a departure from the usual Zone content, I found the debate interesting and it was great to hear something like this with Australian accents!!
well done! - Thanks for posting this Richard. I\'m with Andrew - in that it was a good thing there was no voting on the result of the debate - in my opinion, Ian Powell clearly won. I would be interested in a fallacy-count for each side (come on down, Theo). While listening I thought the poorer arguments, and therefore the most fallacious, were on the the side of the good guys. In future debates with the very capable Ian Powell and others of his ilk I hope the secular-humanist side is better represented.
- To Richard Saunders and the rest of the Skeptic Zone team,
Just want to say that all your hard work is greatly appreciated. Your show is on of the best skeptical podcasts out there. I particularly like the informal style - you all seem like a really nice (as well as smart) bunch of people and I like feeling like I\'m there in the pub with you.
From Ian (not one of the debaters, but the one who put the first comment up about this episode). - Hi Rev Ian,
I dreeeeeeeam of sleeping in on Sunday and I can assure you that even being an atheist such a luxury rarely materialises as I something always seems to foil my dreams of indulgent slothness.
The only binding force that would seem to make any scientific sense is the nature of man and how his behaviour is perceived by his peers. One might argue that a ‘guilty conscience’ is endowed upon us via God, but conversely such an emotion is equally explained as a survival mechanism that enables us to live in a cooperative community. I agree with you that our ancestral ethics do not fit so well in a large modern society where anonymity allows the darker side of our behaviour to go somewhat unchecked. In a small society or family unit you “can’t lie to your mother”, but in the big city it’s rather easier and because it’s in our nature to trust and give the benefit of the doubt, the unscrupulous can take advantage.
Re - disposing of weak members of society –, such sentiment ranges from genocide to putting the old folk in a ‘home’ intrinsically it is the same emotion and both require ‘justification’ by those not wishing to take on an (in their eyes) unwelcome burden. Is it wrong or evil, IMO there is only one litmus test and that is “the golden rule” and how would I like it if the same were done to me, and genocide utterly fails this test while putting the oldies away can be rationalised away under a variety of arguments from economic sense, high care etc.
Re – Boat people and xenophobia, I think you are confusing how people emotionalise initial contact with strangers (fear) to that of a dispassionate realisation of the facts, i.e. people are all basically the same, and really just want a reasonable shot at a happy life.
This is a good point to point out that our emotions are not always reliable, because reacting to fear can escalate a problem rather than solve it. Do we make enemies in the eyes of our peers or uphold to principles we aspire to. Forewarned is forearmed, by knowing and understanding our evolutionary shortcomings we can do what we may feel is counterintuitive and not succumb to knee-jerk responses like sinking boat people. The instinct to preserve our genes as you put it, is poorly served by our nature because something that is now more important drives society, i.e. preserving ideas.
So I basically agree with you to the genetic causation of xenophobia, it’s just a unpleasant aspect of being human.
Re, shouting it and living it – well you are absolutely right in the fact that I can’t logically justify (the problem) because of the way the question is framed:
I don’t have an equivalent (or luxury) of “God saying X is right and Y is wrong” it just isn’t that simple because right and wrong are not always so black and white. Logically the best I can do is just muddle through and take it case by case, with a “well today under these circumstances X is right and Y is wrong, but you know, if the circumstances changed it could be the reverse”. And If circumstances do change and humanities survival depended on Y being right and X being wrong, well you know how it goes, survival of the fittest and all that.
P.S. I don’t think your being obnoxious in the slightest, nothing wrong with being passionate about a cause, life would be rather dull if we all just tiptoed about and talked about the weather. Hope to here form you soon.
- G\'day 4Tune8
One of the funner atheist signs I read recently suggested there was no god so you could sleep in on Sunday. Being a known fanatic I need to go to church in the evening as well so I need to go and do some God bothering - \"for pay\". I will try and respond to your view, as I understand it on Monday.
It does sound though, as if we agree that atheist, evolutionary, God free ethics have no real \"binding\" force on the \"conscience\" then. It is really, just what seems to have worked to get us to where we are now, but it could be argued that our environment seems to have radically changed ftom when we roamed the savannas and so can\'t i argue that the old ways are not only non-binding but may perhaps hold us back from our future. So if I were to argue that weak members of the species should be left to die or even intentionally removed, that is different to the past but not truly wrong or evil. Isn\'t that the perhaps unpleasant but irrefutable logic of a Nietsche and some of his followers.
So regarding the reufgees arriving by boat, sink them, they will not help my genes keep dancing, they are costing us millions, in fact I may feel they are a threat to my genes flourishing. Isn\'t that in all probability the genetic roots of zenophobia. You might not like my position but mine is the way of the future, and who knows what will be best.
Isn\'t it the old problem of geting from an \"is\" to an \"ought\"
By the way I do not think you or I beleive that the boat folk should be shot etc but let us not be bound by old technologies - {companies often find past successes are the casue of future failures when they continue to do what worked in the past when the world has changed.}
A person ought not to abandon atheism because it makes ethics weak but IF I and many great atheists are right about the ephemeral nature of ethics in a god free zone - I just want athiests to admit it, shout it and live it. The problem is not can atheists live good lives, the problem is the logical justification for what thy feel is right
I hope I havent been too obnoxious or misused logic in the situation as I see it.
Rev Ian - Since most of my objections have been addressed by other commenters, though on points I\'d say overall the skeptic won despite having a horrible delivery, I\'ll just ask if anyone else noticed that ANNOYING sound near the microphone; as if during the debate someone was building a wall with brick and mortar? Really distracting to me.
- Hi Andrew - interesting saying we\'re from the \'aggressive Dawkins\' approach, when I would most DEFINITELY categorise myself as being a member of the show that doesn\'t adhere to that stereotype (not that I think it\'s a particularly fair depiction of Dawkins, but you know what I mean). I have written at length on my blog and on the Young Australian Skeptics site about my stance and I'm fairly certain that the other members of the Skeptic Zone have no issues in that regard.
The article in question is called The Deist Skeptic - Not a Contradiction and you can read it at http://podblack.com/?p=1167 - Dear rev Ian, thanks very much for responding, I would say your summary accurately reflects the gist of it. To answer your point 3 (side benefit = other words for?) “side benefit” I suppose it would be better stated as a ‘definition’, i.e. the altruistic behaviour is defined as moral, and that morals don’t exist as some ‘independent thing’.
- Re: \"SS Guard - what i was saying was NOT \"see how nasty atheism leads to vicious hitler\" -therefore atheism is wrong etc\"
It was a fair point to make re a sincere (but wrong) belief violating what I would call \'natural law\'.
You could have also used a group of Muslism\'s crashing a airliner into a building in a obviously sincere belief in their god\'s moral code (the hijackers gave their lives in their belief). Or a group of Christian\'s burning a \'witch\' on a stake (Exodus 22:18).
However, it was not the point you were trying to make (which I understand) that makes me invoke Godwin\'s, but the almost aside comment (sorry no transcript to refer to) but \'...turns to the atheist SS guard and asks\'. This is a logical fallacy of \'poisoning the well\' - associating atheism with Nazi\'s. Germany being a nominally Christian country, the guard could well have been Christian in your example; unless you are implying that people who believe in god wouldn\'t also do wrong things such as these guards?
\"What I was speaking about was how do you argue against this man\'s deep sincere belief that helping a Jew escape was actually evil, wrong and not good\"
It doesn\'t matter that he was a atheist, a Inquisition torturer or a Rwandan tribal member hacking women & children to death. The problem as you point out yourself, is with deep sincere beliefs that are self-evidently wrong.
Your conclusion of the speech appears to justify this; if you are a leader/magistrate, and in your perception - your belief, a city or tribe of people has done bad things, then you are justified in committing horrendous acts of genocide such as those outlined in the old testament. This is exactly why having Christian like GWB running the US worried me. ;-) - Hi Richard
I should have said great podcast. You don\'t do much religion, but when you do, from what I\'ve heard, it seems to be from the Dawkins \"aggressive atheism\" school of thought. The humanist feature for instance. Ian Bryce seemed to adhere to this, and I don\'t think it did him any favours in the debate. He sounded not Sceptical, just cynical.
- Hi guys
From a position of being fairly new to the Sceptic movement, and an agnostic (lasped) Catholic, I thought the Rev won this one hands down.Logical fallacies or not.
I don\\\'t know why TSZ has such a thing with religion, Australia, like Britain, seems to be pretty much a secular society, where religion has no influence on peoples lives. Certainly not to the extent where there\\\'s a serious debate on Creationism or the like.
Concentrate on the Alt-Med nutters and leave people\\\'s faith to themselves.
- To Grant - I won\'t lose too much sleep about violating Godwins \"law\". Actually I think Grant you have broken the well known James Law, far more enduring - \"Let everyone be quick to listen and slow to speak\". I think you have completely missed the point, not heard what I was saying concerning the SS Guard - what i was saying was NOT \"see how nasty atheism leads to vicious hitler\" -therefore atheism is wrong etc. What I was speaking about was how do you argue against this man\'s deep sincere belief that helping a Jew escape was actually evil, wrong and not good.
I was trying to find a coherent world view that produces results I assume Ian B would disagree with to see how a god-free ethic justifies its preferences. Perhaps another might be female circumcision in a culture that has been doing it for over a thousand years - but the sad SS story is clearer. I make enough dumb mistakes without being attacked for stuff I clearly didn\'t say. Perhaps Godwin needs a 2nd law concerning peoples likelihood of erroneously applying his 1st law anytime Hitler and Co are mentioned in any context without really listening.
I am a free thinker and not a slave to preferences amusingly stated as laws (said with a smile). Rev Ian - had to jump on and comment on this episode - something I rarely feel the need to. As an atheist I was really disappointed with Ian B\'s approach; negative, cold and not a well laid out argument addressing the topic. IMHO, my personal after-dinner debates with my brother-in-law (a Catholic priest with post-grad degree in theology to go with law & history degrees) are much for fun and explore topics better. Personally, talking about non-Christian gods would have made the debate more interesting I find, rather than trying to throw old testament scripture around.
I can\'t let Ian P get away with his violation of Godwins law though - I cringed at his \'atheist SS guard\' line as a very sad debating point. Brian Dunnings makes a very valid point on this style of argument about who is most evil: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076#
- Dear 4tune8chance
Let me check of I have heard you properly.
1 – We are social animals and have developed an “evolutionary instinct” for ”cooperation” which is more effective than just competing with others.
2 – Cooperation “simply works” and therefore it has “ultimate legitimacy”.
3 – So what we call ethics is really a “side benefit” of acting in a way that “helps ourselves” (Side benefit = other words for ?)
I am not trying to send you up. I have studied what you have written to make sure I have heard you properly. I will wait (and that is hard for a chatterbox like me) until you agree with or correct my summary before I respond to your points.
Rev Ian
- Ian if I may intrude:
Quote IAN P> But I really am genuinely puzzled that quite a few atheists don’t seem to see the logical rational difficulty (at least) of starting from base reality of energy etc and working step by careful step to an intellectually coherent binding moral \"ought\" – socially convenient ought- yes , evolutionary helpful ought - yes – but not one that has any ultimate legitimacy.
The ultimate legitimacy as you put it, is that ‘it simply works’, i.e. in the process you describe as energy, to life, to intellect, misses a very important aspect and that is the complexity of interaction between individuals. To explain - as each seeks to cement his place in life we are in competition with our peers, but a social animal like ourselves finds that cooperation helps ourselves, and the seemingly altruistic side benefit is what we call moral or ethical behaviour. What you attribute as a God given “internal nagging voice” when we contemplate doing wrong is but the evolutionary instinct developed over millions of years of living together.
That it simply works could, I think, be given a bit of a thought experiment. Imagine if you will a different evolutionary path and instead of evolving from a social hominid that instead we evolved from the lion. In such an imaginary situation, performing infanticide upon taking on a new wife would not be seen as ‘wrong’ but the norm and right thing to do. Males getting a job, no way.
In your debate you quoted “Without God all is excusable” (paraphrased). Well yes and no, No in common situations and Yes in extreme circumstances, I have yet to find a moral that does not find “and out” under some dreadful circumstance. It’s just not that black and white and all is excusable but not in every circumstance.
I would be interested in your thoughts on these points. - To Tom,
I have now listened to myself on this web-site - worse than going to the dentist. I think your send up of me is odd and it does seem to be an attack on \"the man\" rather than the arguments, and is almost certainly unfair - I am like a cranky cornered cat and bad tempered child - you must have witnessed very mild cornered animals or cranky kids.
Could you help me and perhaps other readers by listing the top 2 or 3 arguments that are directly related to the topic that Ian B raised that I \"could not meet\".
I would also be interested if you thought there was even one worthwhile argument in all that I said? Sagan\'s quote is worth us all chewiing on.
Sincerely Rev Ian - Hi and a couple of responses to some comments from “the demagog” reverend. I may well have been guilty of some logical fallacies and I intend to listen to the debate to detect some and learn. For any that were real I do apologise. I thought the topic was oddly worded and was unconvinced that either of the Ian’s did a good job. It is not an area that I know deeply, possible not Ian B’s area of expertise either. ( I think Martin Hadley of Aust .Skeptics would have been a far more formidable opponent)
It has never crossed my mind that atheists cannot be good, however we define good – as I think I made clear in the debate. I have never heard Christians say that but I understand many of you might have. (I have heard Philip Adams mishear and then react in “righteous indignation” to a question about “objective moral values”) But I really am genuinely puzzled that quite a few atheists don’t seem to see the logical rational difficulty (at least) of starting from base reality of energy etc and working step by careful step to an intellectually coherent binding moral \"ought\" – socially convenient ought- yes , evolutionary helpful ought - yes – but not one that has any ultimate legitimacy.
It is an argument that atheist need to sought out as some elite atheist thinkers have been quite clear on this problem. But my argument is not that atheists cannot be good.
I don’t really think I was anything like very angry or like a kid throwing a tantrum, but I haven’t watched it yet – I was certainly sleep deprived so perhaps. But I am frustrated at the number of atheists I meet who insist on treating Dawkins as if he is a thorough and brilliant scholar-debater. As I guess many of you are aware, quite a number of leading atheists and general non-Christian writers have critiqued Dawkins “facts” and argumentation. He has so many basic errors in the “God Delusion” that it is staggering. I also felt Ian B’s arguments avoided the central point and built on some scientfic possibilities as if they were well established \"facts\" - I am a science lover but feel this great method and its fruits are abused by by religionaists and atheists - not good.
So I think the real issue is one of meta-ethics not just day be day moral decsions. (This does ultimately make a big difference.) There the atheist does seem to have issues, where say Christianity does not. However that does not prove either is right or wrong, that has to be worked out on questions of whether or not some sort of god is real or imagined and more specifically whether that god has revealed himself or are we just left guessing and choosing a religion of tribe or personal preference
Ian Powell
- A point that wasn't adequately covered (as far as I recall) is the idea that morality comes from the Bible, and the Bible got it from God. I think it is indeed fair to say that much of Western morality does come from the Bible. This seems to be an inevitable historical fact. Theists use this to infer that therefore you can't be good without God. But the morality found in the Bible is a corrupted version of the morality inherent in most human beings - morality that has evolved as a result of humans living (and needing to survive) in social groups.
The Bible did not get its morality from God, it got it from humanity, and passed it back in a distorted and often repugnant form. You can be good without God - if you bypass scripture and go back to where morality originates. - Rev. Ian Powell has very weak comments and just seems very angry, like a cat cornered. He was overly emotional in his personal attacks on atheists, the british, and Richard Dawkins. It reminded me of a child having a tantrum. He could not meet the arguments in my view.
In order to get good people to do bad things, it takes Religion.
There are good people in the world and there is NO god or gods of any kind. - I was sadly disappointed in the debate as both debaters talked past each other and both were guilty of multiple logical fallacies. I was tempted to critique the debate but realise its not the same as a forum debate and if your up on stage you have to be able think on your feet, something the atheist presenter seemed to have a little difficulty with.
- hi all, love your show. first, to answer Kylie\'s question- the reason i come here instead of the JREF is that i know i can go to the episode in question and comment on it. i will check JREF and see how it is formatted.
in terms of this show, i would not want to be in (Ian) Bryce\'s place because i know how tough it is, but i have to say i felt he made a lot of the worst mistakes atheists can make. the theist was more witty and charming and stuck to positives while Bryce sounded cold and negative. being raised a christian, i know how cherry picking bad things is easily dismissed by theists by cherry picking good things. i think one of the things you have to button down immediately is \"do you accept the bible as the inerrant word of God?\" if he doesn\'t then you have to either challenge him on that stance or use another tactic.
like others have said, i think he should have focused on the good atheists have done and the naturalistic view of the evolution of morals- and how they have evolved since the bible was written. and he should have owned up and admitted that atheists could and should do more for charity and community, noting the problems of not being a group that naturally congregates.
what i took out of this debate was less of \"does god exist and give us morals\" and more \"are christians better, more giving and caring people?\" and, unfortunately, the theist more or less won that question.
granted, the whole premise would be hard for me to debate because i would want to start off by asking what proof he even had for God. I hate how many arguments i hear that are essentially \"God exists because if he didn\'t it would be really bad.\" - No worries, hope that it provides a little more opportunities for discussion! We also have the blog, where Dr Rachael posts up what are essentially transcripts of her sections at http://skepticzone.wordpress.com/. I've kept an occasional line up of show notes (until my thesis got so overwhelming that I couldn't go through things thoroughly but I have a lot of drafts that I will eventually post to fill the gaps).
We're also keeping up a 'vodcast' presence of a sorts - more recently I posted up a five minute sound-bite of the next interview with Tim Minchin, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYIwZ2n9xY8 . I'm thinking of making this an occasional feature, since there has been interviews we've done using the camera / can feature 'visuals' to accompany the interview.
I've had a few people sadly remark that they were more into vodcasts than podcasts and that they miss what the TANK used to be... so, any issues with that accompanying the 'podcast' show?
- Also with Ian.
Skeptic \"begged the question\" quite often (among other logical fallacies). I was less so provoked, and more led to thinking I could have done a much better job. And the last time I debated was in grade 9 over a decade ago.
Can we be good without God? All he had to do was show some great examples of folks who\'ve done just that. Didn\'t happen. Going over to where others are chatting in the forum you mentioned, Kylie. Cheers for pointing that out. - I\'m with Ian, the first commenter (a plague of Ians! Help!!). Honestly, I got quite angry with both speakers at various times in the debate, over their logical fallacies, straw man arguments, and presumptive arrogance. I think Bryce deviated from the true skeptical attitude on several occasions.
- Can I just say - thank you VERY much to everyone who has commented? We do read them and take on the ideas and advice. It's very much appreciated.
I do know that there's a forum-board section on the JREF site and there's the opportunity to comment here - do you think that both of those provide enough places to have a say? Should this be considered the 'best' place to give feedback? (I say this because this seems to be the area where I see more comments by listeners than any other section online).
K. - Nice debate, caused me a headache though ;)
Our guy unfortunately was no match for the demagog "Reverend". Arguing against an avalance of logical fallacies is something only few people can do very well. Alas, not many of us are born speakers. Even if their arguments are right.
I still enjoyed it, though. It's always amazing to see someone bring reasonable arguments, only to be countered with red herrings, false premises and a dose of Godwins law. The constant head-shaking is what caused the headache in the end, I guess (ha ha).
Looking forward to next episode with all you Zoners. See ya! - Quick note from a U.S. listener. This wasn\'t my favorite episode either, for much the same reasons Ian mentioned. I did think it was funny that both sides quoted the U.S. Declaration of Independence and called it the Constitution. For the record, our Constitution does not mention any deity and only mentions religion twice. In Article 6 it says \"... no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.\" and the first amendment says, \"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...\"
- I usually love the skeptic zone but this episode was disappointing. I think the standard of arguments displayed by both sides was terrible. They didn\'t address the motion correctly, and they didn\'t really interact in such a ways as to address each other\'s points either. The christian guy had a better style, and had some interesting points but he was the worst offender on the logical fallacy front (I guess that actually makes him a good debater by some people\'s standards!). The skeptic began with some good points, but he made them badly and his speaking style was not very good. He could have come across better by sticking rigidly to the motion and not taking the tangents that he did, but most importantly he definitely needs to work on his speaking style.
Post your comment:
