+Onodera1980 More like: "argument from personal incredulity". An "argument from ignorance" involves claiming that your opponent can't prove you wrong - as in: "You don't 'know' that my explanation is incorrect."
Turek makes HUGE leaps in his assumptions. "God," whom he states is the supreme moral giver, is, has been, and will be subjectively interpreted. Morality, then, becomes subjective. As humans change their interpretation of God, so does right and wrong (e.g. slavery, women's suffrage, "Biblical" marriage). The fact that morality is genetically implanted (e.g. 2/3's of the world are not Christians and most live morally) shows that human beings get along fine (actually better, according to the research) when fundamentalist religion does not interfere.
+Carlos Pérez I'm saying the concept of God is subjective. There are over 41,000 Christian denominations alone, not to mention all of the other religions, religious books and materials. Nearly everyone believes their version of God (particularly fundamentalists Christians) is true and correct. Morality, if based on "God," then, also becomes subjective. One of Turek's huge leaps is that he believes HIS version of God is correct and, therefore, morality should be based on his version. But morality even changes in the Bible, as Shermer pointed out. "Biblical marriage," for example has changed throughout the centuries where women were first treated as property.
+Tim Rymel, I agree that the values in the Bible are many time not moral, but I was wondering if you thought morality was subjective rather than objective. I am an atheist, but I think morality is objective
+Carlos Pérez I haven't read this book, yet. It's on my list. Yale University's Paul Bloom says morality is part of our DNA. The book is called Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origins-Good-Evil/dp/0307886840 I toggle between atheist and agnostic.
+Tim Rymel , I like the position taken by Shelly Kagan in which morality is objective and is in a very basic sense about not harming sentient beings and not failing to help and from there you can create moral frameworks. Like the law of non-contradiction morality is a law that requires no law giver and even if God exists he would be bound to it in order to be called good. Also, our changing perception of what's moral does mean that morality changes, let's say that we think the Earth is square, then we find the Earth seems to be more like a sphere, so the Earth did not change, but our perceptions about it did. The same way our perceptions on morality change over time and from culture to culture, but can they improve? Is there an actual improvement from thinking slavery is ok to slavery is wrong? Was the German rebel trying to save Jews moral even though most thought he/she did something immoral? Arguing that there is improvement does not seem to be possible from the subjective perspective, as it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, so there is change, but no improvement. And that's why I believe morality is objective.
Everybody apparently knows right and wrong ("written on our hearts") @ 1:11:00 and yet apparently there are people like Hitler. Somehow, apologists are allowed to say Hitler was a monster and they can say he is objectively wrong but Shermer isn't allowed to appeal to human's intuition as a whole (unlike Turek) to make the same argument. I'm disappointed that Shermer didn't point out this blatant hypocrisy.
Frank Turek comes across as patronizing/condescending. But then, so do many Christian preachers and apologists. They can't resist rhymes and acrostics.
13:20 - _"Mind (God) or Matter (humans)?"_ . . . . WTF? The only example of "minds" we have are all based on or are directly related to matter - we haven't found a single example of a *mind existing sans matter.* Le sigh . . . . le fucking sigh.
Holy crap at Turek's list of "immaterial things" that allegedly "exist". And to justify it all, he asserts that these things can't be explained materially.
"How can we even reason if we're just molecules in motion?" Either Turek is a huge fan of misconceptions, or he's a world class bigot, or he really somehow experienced this weird "immaterial reason" (presumably after having a stroke ...)
Turek isn't interested in honesty and deep thought. He's rife with catchphrases and retorts to bullying rather than answer questions. Shermer was right to get angry at moments.
+ThePharphis I can't disagree. I thought Turek was a bit of a bully with his Over-The-Top "Hello Mc.Fly" insult. I lost quite a bit of respect for him because of that. Michael Shermer is not an idiot, that was absolutely disrespectful. I also thought Shermer stopped questioning and started attacking, and was visibly upset, very out of character and did not represent himself as I have heard him in the past.
Science and Reason show that all human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to unjustly violate another's right. A person who does so is committing an immoral act. Belief in a dogma inevitably produces tribalism--the mistaken idea that one group is naturally superior to another. The lifeblood of religion is dogma.
Wow. Shermer does not come off that well in his question section of this debate. I know Turek is bad, but Shermer should not have taken Turek's bait and gone down to this level. Turek just beat Shermer down with experience.
If you don't have an understanding of morality, how do you know God's morality is good? If morality comes from God, then he can do or say anything, and that would be morally good. Including allowing Hitler to do what he did.
Why should we trust our thoughts if they're just based on physics: This is a simple one. Our sense although not perfect give reliable results. Being aware of our biases helps us make informed decisions and quite simply: Our thoughts produce results. We can see all of the technology that has arisen from our observations put into practice. While any one individual belief or observation doesn't necessarily wholly reflect reality, many of our thoughts do because cognition evolved to support our survival and reproduction. Hard to support either of these if your thoughts and observations don't reflect reality!
Poor from start to end. Both sides are very dogmatic, ignorant and don't even argue their own case with any skill, history or coherence, let alone understand their opponents position.
+John-Paul Stuthridge I read this comment and now that I'm barely more than halfway through the debate, I agree entirely. Turek had many of the classic debate talking points. Shermer had a good intro (except maybe for insulting his audience) and then fell apart during the direct question section (which is usually the worst part for theists since they are held accountable for their standards). He mostly shouted at his opponent and audience and didn't even answer questions directly.
You'd have to demonstrate God exists, which no one has. Then, you'd still have to demonstrate you can know God's mind and will. There's no way anyone has found to do either of those things. So there's no point in Turek's arguments. They have no foundation and no force.
+biggregg5 What would you do if you discovered there was no god? Who would you do...[if you there was no god]. The who would you do was funny but you can hear the gasps. Maybe leave that part out next time.
Even though think Shermer did quite bad in this debate, just the fact that Shermer's moral totem is Dr. King Jr. and Turek's is Mother Teresa should tell one everything they need to know about their morals.
Dude... I know, right? Hahahaha... I was laughing. It's good to see a voice of reason put irrational ideas in their place. Although given the audience, I don't think Michael was in good graces with most of this audience.
How the fuck is this even still a debate? Shermer needs to quit this now rather than just doing it for the money, and Turek has not only had his ass handed to him by everyone he's ever debated, but he's simply been humiliated each and every time.
+PolemicContrarian Holy crap Shermer did awful. So much shouting and putting words in the mouths of others. Also, telling everyone that they're immoral isn't a good start (middle or finish...), yikes
PolemicContrarian Excuse me, but I never said I agree with Turek. In fact, I agreed with almost nothing he said in this debate at all. I merely said that Shermer did a terrible job and I still hold that opinion with regards to the 40 mins or whatever where they spent their time berating each other (and Shermer, the audience). He did fine in the intro, audience QnA and conclusion. Thanks for making the rest of us atheists and antitheists look bad, though. It's people like you who continue to give atheists a bad name. I'm an agnostic atheist antitheist. Try reading my actual words instead of presuming the worst about me.
ThePharphis "Thanks for making the rest of us atheists and antitheists look bad, though. It's people like you who continue to give atheists a bad name." I'm not the atheism or anti-theism spokesperson, so... I don't represent any of those groups, I represent myself. Just as no other person represents my views except me.
PolemicContrarian For every member of a group that is needlessly a dick and presumptive about those who disagree with them, there will be others who will extrapolate this behavior to be part of the group itself. It's a good reason to try to be civil even when you disagree vehemently. In this case, I didn't even say anything about Turek and you vomited your thoughts about religious people onto me.
Am I the only one who thinks there were a few points during the debate someone should've gone up on stage and slapped Shermer? He was just shouting like an idiot 50% of the time, not answering anything. And I'm an atheist BTW :(
His god won't force me into heaven against my will =_) That's the only thing he said that I liked=_) I surly wouldn't want to live for an eternity with such evil minded people=_) Or a god that would put someone in a place of forever torment just for asking for evidence of it's existence!!!! With all the gods to pick from is that too much to ask?
1:32:19
Frank: "Christianity's not blind faith, atheism is blind faith"
People clap and cheer.
Good job, New York.
I can break down Frank's argument into 3 words - "Argument from Ignorance". By definition, that is a bad argument.
+Onodera1980 More like: "argument from personal incredulity". An "argument from ignorance" involves claiming that your opponent can't prove you wrong - as in: "You don't 'know' that my explanation is incorrect."
Turek makes HUGE leaps in his assumptions. "God," whom he states is the supreme moral giver, is, has been, and will be subjectively interpreted. Morality, then, becomes subjective. As humans change their interpretation of God, so does right and wrong (e.g. slavery, women's suffrage, "Biblical" marriage). The fact that morality is genetically implanted (e.g. 2/3's of the world are not Christians and most live morally) shows that human beings get along fine (actually better, according to the research) when fundamentalist religion does not interfere.
+Tim Rymel, are you saying morality is subjective or objective?
+Carlos Pérez I'm saying the concept of God is subjective. There are over 41,000 Christian denominations alone, not to mention all of the other religions, religious books and materials. Nearly everyone believes their version of God (particularly fundamentalists Christians) is true and correct. Morality, if based on "God," then, also becomes subjective. One of Turek's huge leaps is that he believes HIS version of God is correct and, therefore, morality should be based on his version. But morality even changes in the Bible, as Shermer pointed out. "Biblical marriage," for example has changed throughout the centuries where women were first treated as property.
+Tim Rymel, I agree that the values in the Bible are many time not moral, but I was wondering if you thought morality was subjective rather than objective. I am an atheist, but I think morality is objective
+Carlos Pérez I haven't read this book, yet. It's on my list. Yale University's Paul Bloom says morality is part of our DNA. The book is called Just Babies: The Origins of Good and Evil. www.amazon.com/Just-Babies-Origins-Good-Evil/dp/0307886840
I toggle between atheist and agnostic.
+Tim Rymel , I like the position taken by Shelly Kagan in which morality is objective and is in a very basic sense about not harming sentient beings and not failing to help and from there you can create moral frameworks. Like the law of non-contradiction morality is a law that requires no law giver and even if God exists he would be bound to it in order to be called good. Also, our changing perception of what's moral does mean that morality changes, let's say that we think the Earth is square, then we find the Earth seems to be more like a sphere, so the Earth did not change, but our perceptions about it did. The same way our perceptions on morality change over time and from culture to culture, but can they improve? Is there an actual improvement from thinking slavery is ok to slavery is wrong? Was the German rebel trying to save Jews moral even though most thought he/she did something immoral? Arguing that there is improvement does not seem to be possible from the subjective perspective, as it's descriptive rather than prescriptive, so there is change, but no improvement. And that's why I believe morality is objective.
Everybody apparently knows right and wrong ("written on our hearts") @ 1:11:00 and yet apparently there are people like Hitler.
Somehow, apologists are allowed to say Hitler was a monster and they can say he is objectively wrong but Shermer isn't allowed to appeal to human's intuition as a whole (unlike Turek) to make the same argument.
I'm disappointed that Shermer didn't point out this blatant hypocrisy.
you gotta love shermer...
Frank Turek comes across as patronizing/condescending. But then, so do many Christian preachers and apologists. They can't resist rhymes and acrostics.
13:20 - _"Mind (God) or Matter (humans)?"_ . . . . WTF? The only example of "minds" we have are all based on or are directly related to matter - we haven't found a single example of a *mind existing sans matter.* Le sigh . . . . le fucking sigh.
+rictus grin Ya that was a bizarre dichotomy he set up
Holy crap at Turek's list of "immaterial things" that allegedly "exist".
And to justify it all, he asserts that these things can't be explained materially.
"How can we even reason if we're just molecules in motion?"
Either Turek is a huge fan of misconceptions, or he's a world class bigot, or he really somehow experienced this weird "immaterial reason" (presumably after having a stroke ...)
all of the above
Turek isn't interested in honesty and deep thought. He's rife with catchphrases and retorts to bullying rather than answer questions. Shermer was right to get angry at moments.
Adults believing in fairytales should just keep it for themselves...
The crowd is an absolute embarrassment.
I didn't realize this would turn into a sermon.
+God Was Bored It doesn't help that both parties did a lot of shouting/interrupting rather than answering questions directly
+ThePharphis I can't disagree. I thought Turek was a bit of a bully with his Over-The-Top "Hello Mc.Fly" insult. I lost quite a bit of respect for him because of that. Michael Shermer is not an idiot, that was absolutely disrespectful. I also thought Shermer stopped questioning and started attacking, and was visibly upset, very out of character and did not represent himself as I have heard him in the past.
God Was Bored Agreed. I'm sure Shermer COULD do a fine job in an interrogation segment but he did awful here.
Geeez, Shermer did a lot of shouting rather than refuting. :/
Turek's ideas are simply vile.
A fetus is not a PERSON. Personhood involves more than having cells.
I agree that it is a complicated topic
Science and Reason show that all human beings have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. There is no right to unjustly violate another's right. A person who does so is committing an immoral act. Belief in a dogma inevitably produces tribalism--the mistaken idea that one group is naturally superior to another. The lifeblood of religion is dogma.
Wow. Shermer does not come off that well in his question section of this debate. I know Turek is bad, but Shermer should not have taken Turek's bait and gone down to this level. Turek just beat Shermer down with experience.
This looks familiar... like history keeps repeating itself.
If you don't have an understanding of morality, how do you know God's morality is good? If morality comes from God, then he can do or say anything, and that would be morally good. Including allowing Hitler to do what he did.
There's a spooky ghost in the bottom right corner!
Why should we trust our thoughts if they're just based on physics:
This is a simple one. Our sense although not perfect give reliable results. Being aware of our biases helps us make informed decisions and quite simply: Our thoughts produce results. We can see all of the technology that has arisen from our observations put into practice. While any one individual belief or observation doesn't necessarily wholly reflect reality, many of our thoughts do because cognition evolved to support our survival and reproduction. Hard to support either of these if your thoughts and observations don't reflect reality!
+ThePharphis Ah, Turek recognizes this himself when answering how he can trust the bible. Hilarious
Where do rights come from:
Humans grant other humans right. There is no external rights-giver
+ThePharphis edit: looks like Shermer mentions this 6 mins later
Poor from start to end.
Both sides are very dogmatic, ignorant and don't even argue their own case with any skill, history or coherence, let alone understand their opponents position.
+John-Paul Stuthridge I read this comment and now that I'm barely more than halfway through the debate, I agree entirely.
Turek had many of the classic debate talking points. Shermer had a good intro (except maybe for insulting his audience) and then fell apart during the direct question section (which is usually the worst part for theists since they are held accountable for their standards). He mostly shouted at his opponent and audience and didn't even answer questions directly.
Dr. Seuss. What more should we expect from an apologist?
Where do RIGHTS come from if I don't have an imaginary friend???? WTF
Michael did get angry. Deliberate ignorance will bring it out on occasion. End of story.
Turek's interpretive dancing sure is deliberately ignorant. I would get angry at that too.
You'd have to demonstrate God exists, which no one has. Then, you'd still have to demonstrate you can know God's mind and will. There's no way anyone has found to do either of those things. So there's no point in Turek's arguments. They have no foundation and no force.
Watch that opening joke Mr. Shermer. I thought it was funny but you put off half your audience.
What joke are you referring to?
+biggregg5 What would you do if you discovered there was no god? Who would you do...[if you there was no god]. The who would you do was funny but you can hear the gasps. Maybe leave that part out next time.
Even though think Shermer did quite bad in this debate, just the fact that Shermer's moral totem is Dr. King Jr. and Turek's is Mother Teresa should tell one everything they need to know about their morals.
Turek is as disingenuous as Sye Ten.
Holy shit Michael got pissed!
Dude... I know, right? Hahahaha... I was laughing. It's good to see a voice of reason put irrational ideas in their place. Although given the audience, I don't think Michael was in good graces with most of this audience.
What is with the conservative right and sports metaphors?
How the fuck is this even still a debate?
Shermer needs to quit this now rather than just doing it for the money, and Turek has not only had his ass handed to him by everyone he's ever debated, but he's simply been humiliated each and every time.
+PolemicContrarian He's working on a seat in heaven I guess. That's if he's not an out and out grifter.
+PolemicContrarian Holy crap Shermer did awful. So much shouting and putting words in the mouths of others. Also, telling everyone that they're immoral isn't a good start (middle or finish...), yikes
PolemicContrarian Excuse me, but I never said I agree with Turek. In fact, I agreed with almost nothing he said in this debate at all.
I merely said that Shermer did a terrible job and I still hold that opinion with regards to the 40 mins or whatever where they spent their time berating each other (and Shermer, the audience). He did fine in the intro, audience QnA and conclusion.
Thanks for making the rest of us atheists and antitheists look bad, though. It's people like you who continue to give atheists a bad name.
I'm an agnostic atheist antitheist. Try reading my actual words instead of presuming the worst about me.
ThePharphis "Thanks for making the rest of us atheists and antitheists look bad, though. It's people like you who continue to give atheists a bad name."
I'm not the atheism or anti-theism spokesperson, so... I don't represent any of those groups, I represent myself. Just as no other person represents my views except me.
PolemicContrarian For every member of a group that is needlessly a dick and presumptive about those who disagree with them, there will be others who will extrapolate this behavior to be part of the group itself. It's a good reason to try to be civil even when you disagree vehemently. In this case, I didn't even say anything about Turek and you vomited your thoughts about religious people onto me.
I think it is hilarious that Turek thinks Mother Teresa was moral.
44:00 Shoulda used a real computer. XD
Am I the only one who thinks there were a few points during the debate someone should've gone up on stage and slapped Shermer?
He was just shouting like an idiot 50% of the time, not answering anything.
And I'm an atheist BTW :(
Turek is a huckster
Godwin's law 22:00 min, /slowclap for Frank "the Imbecile" Turek.
?why it is always something vs something else
The world is not that binary as you always suppose
His god won't force me into heaven against my will =_) That's the only thing he said that I liked=_) I surly wouldn't want to live for an eternity with such evil minded people=_) Or a god that would put someone in a place of forever torment just for asking for evidence of it's existence!!!! With all the gods to pick from is that too much to ask?