Jacoby-Shermer Debate (8/10)

[CarmineFragione]

The viewpoint is the revealing portion, The world is here, it is all around us , but what does it all mean ? Is it happenstance, and though the odds were farfetched, we are here alive and have a portion of a great miracle, but then , all comes to nothing, there is no meaning to the gift of life and the moment ? The Moment has no meaning to Eternity ? I think not. the moment is always and always will be attached to all times, and the soul that doubts God, is the small mind .

[CarmineFragione]

There is a certain Grain of Observable Data of human behavior to describe it as alive and Intelligent. It is like blowing up a photograph to the limits of it's definition or grain , so it just becomes a fog of dots and means nothing. And to observe a human behavior, which we accept is a living entity, so finely, so small in the duration of observation by time, that what we see is inadequate to conclude. To hear only one note of a song, makes it hard to recognize it even as a song,

[1empathy]

@CarmineFragione every comment you post confirms that you are a fuckwit ;o)

[CarmineFragione]

@1empathy It takes one to know one .

[CarmineFragione]

God is easy to prove as a Verb. If all the parts assemble to act out as the whole, then the general behavior rises above the parts themselves and an Intelligent Behavior is simply Behavior and not Random, If the Behavior is numerically discussed as more than just a bunch of Static Parts at Rest, but things are correlating , then at least the Behavior is definable as Intelligent and so the Behavior stands as a sort of description of something more than just a loose association, as God.

[CarmineFragione]

God is a consideration of the Placebo being the rule, not the Matter. So God can one day lift a stone, and then next, entirely ruled by the desire of His Mind, God considers to lift the stone and so God is Transformative by the Placebo of an Intelligent Desire, not the mechanics of  Material Problems. Even with us, Motivation makes the difference if we can pole vault the top tier, but without proper motivation , we then fail. So it is not the Material Limit, it is a Placebo Acting Out.

[dwheel39]

Does anyone see the problem with his evolution-based morality? How can evolution give you a higher or enlightened sense of morality? He is right that it is woven into the fabric of our being but how? How can a blind, natural process give you "moral laws"? This is ridiculous. Laws, in this sense, come from conscious, intelligent beings. We are all born with a sense of right and wrong so it seems only logical that it was woven into us by a higher, moral intelligent being.

[jmg94j]

@dwheel39 Morality has an easily explainable natural cause. If I steal from someone, or assault someone, I am causing harm to that person, and that person may in turn, want to cause harm to me, causing a vicious cycle. Conversely, helpful actions usually have good consequences and the more people help each other, the more successful that society will be. It is the desire for all of us to live in a peaceful, harmonious society that decide our morals. It is nothing supernatural, just simple logic.

[dwheel39]

@jmg94j RE: "If I steal from someone, or assault someone, I am causing harm to that person, and that person may in turn, want to cause harm to me, causing a vicious cycle. "

That seems to be an explanation for social ethics or behaviors but says nothing of the ontology of morality itself. A higher morality (virtue) doesn't "not harm because i may be harmed". This would be a rather low level of morality, wouldn't it? Self sacrifice, putting others first etc can't be explained that way.

[resculptit]

Why did the recorder of this video cut out so much of Shermer's talk? Got something to hide?

[Alix1437]

I was completely disappointed by Shermers arguments which were easily destroyed by Jacoby. Shermer couldn't stay on topic, committed multiple logical fallacies, such as false dilemma and straw man. It would be nice if the skeptics who continuously claim to know the "facts" and use logic and reasoning actually knew how to use logics and reasoning to conduct debates. As smart as Shermer is, he clearly doesn't understand logics since he committed many logical fallacies.

[Gafaton]

@Alix1437 Which arguments were destroyed by Jacoby? You apparently don't know the definition of logic and reason.

[MrShysterme]

@Alix1437 You'll have to be a bit more specific. What fallacies, when, and how so?

[drstrangelove09]

Love what Shermer says about the strangeness of emphasizing belief in deciding who's worthy of heaven. He's polite enough to not say why this is the case, but we know why. Of course, Shermer is correct in pointing out that morality isn't about belief but is about actions.

[samuellis]

Wow its really sad to see all these fail Atheist coming here and thinking they all smart saying all these things without respect of the other side. Fools even when losing still think they winning because they think they are right. Just shut up listen take your side and respect.

[Gafaton]

@samuellis Interesting double standard how you tell people to shut up and then demand their respect.

[samuellis]

@Gafaton You do the same all the time, I don't demand respect I just think we should respect but sometimes you put your feet down when you have too. Like I said shut up and listen and take your side, I shut my mouth and just take my side too the saying applies to me as well...

[jamestrekky]

Shermer's whole argument can be summed up by "I DON"T KNOW"

How lame, why debate if that is your stand?? just stay home and say "i don't know". Looking for a good debate and this is all he gives. shamefool.

[MRfullon]

@jamestrekky because WE DONT KNOW.

[CapnofRum]

@jamestrekky It's not simply that HE doesn't know. The more important concept is that WE don't know. Perhaps we don't have the capacity to understand what happened in the beginning or before the beginning; but it doesn't help anyone to postulate that a Big Invisible Daddy in the sky was the one who caused it. Science is working on answers while Religion sits on a golden toilet and lazily basks in its own ignorance.

[jamestrekky]

@CapnofRum You must be ignoring all the facts! The EVIDENCE from science points to a creator. There is MORE evidence of intelligent design that random origins of life. You choose to ignore the facts. In fact, the more WORK you do in looking into science, astronomy and biology, the more evidence you will find of a creator. It more LAZIER to sit back and say I DON'T KNOW when the evidence is out there. Look harder.

[bradmorris67]

@5:00... Ah, the old railway scenario. Shermer hit a false dilemma as there is a third alternative .......

[MorganMarvinson]

"Confirmation bias" ... "in science you're not allowed to do it"

FOFL!!

[Jrobes123]

Not believing in God is still believing that there is no God, hence a belief.

[Catrambi]

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.

[cjunk351]

i will be bumping the big fat christian of the bridge no problems at all

[TooDrunkToCare808]

God did not create himself... Therefore he is a natural creation just like all the rest of us.

We'll thats according to the Christian creator/designer argument, unless of course god just popped himself into existence!

[jamesblond0069]

Shermer clearly wins this debate hands down. Jacobys arguments my sound intelligent but deep down its so fucking stupid! Jacoby is a complete moron. In debates between atheist and theist, the Atheist ALWAYS winsALWAYS!!! Why? Simple. Evidence. Logic. and Common Sense. Something that theists DONT have.

[Transformers217]

@jamesblond0069 I don't see how atheists have more common sense, or logic. It's an illogical position.

And Jacoby wins, because Shermer didn't have much of an argument. Sure, he's humble, but he puts himself in a no win situation.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

Er....WHOOSH! You totally missed the many points he gave you I take it. Watch it again, and get some paper. Geez, how can you not see this? You are looking at this with a biasd view. Surely you see this?

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream I hear the points, but their not well spoken, or put together.

I'm not being biased. I actually have an objective view, and I find Jacoby's argument to be far more impressive.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

The points he expresses were in direct proportion to Jacoby's points. Jacoby even admited that his own version of a god might not be the actual one, but there is a god none the less. That's crazy talk. He's even able to consider the islamic god then. And the HIndu god(s). So if all these current versions of gods are fair game, then that means that all the other thousands of gods prior to the current religions arent excempt either from posiibility of existence. Right?

(cont)

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream Absolutely. It's possible that we're all worshipping the wrong God, and that the actual God hasn't come yet. That's a possibility.

But there is far more historical, and archealogical evidence towards Christianity. So the actual God would have to be in the Bible.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

Well, you could then say anything is possible or fair game. Even purple eared pixies, if we're to throw out possibilities.

As to the history of the bible and the god of thebible, the muslims have the same range of documents and 'evidence' as you christians. Why does your religion lend anymore credence than islam.Or Hindusim?Or Bddhism? I'd say, Buddhism is the most plausible faith of all thereligions,but then ultimately,we're left with the same argument of lack of Evidence

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream According to historical, and archealogical facts, there is bigger support for Christianity.

The Bible, and Jesus Christ are clear proof of God's existence. So the burden of proof is not on Christians. It's on the atheists.

Atheists have to prove that God doesn't exist.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

no, no ,no. (sigh) Quiet the other way around. Atheists dont make any such claims. You however do. Extraodinary claims require extraordinary measure. It is up to you guys to show us the existence of this brand of deiety. Still waiting...

You're asking for a negative without providing first a positive. This cannot be done.

If you had masses of muslims claiming that the christian god IS afterall the true one, THEN you'd have something to work with...but still not evidence.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream Not at all. The evidence for the existence of God, is both the Bible and Jesus Christ.

So the burden of proof isn't on Christians.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

Listen. Scholars of all kinds dont just get up in the morning and decide to start doubting the bible and it's characters just for kicks. There really isnt any proof that jesus even ever existed, other than through heresay. Bible cant be proof of itself, because that's silly. You need other varifying notations of it's existence. We know many historical figures through outside varifications.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream There's actually over 40 different accounts of Jesus's existence. Both within the Gospels, and other outside sources. There's probably more historical evidence of Jesus's existence, then for Alexander the Great.

So Jesus has outside varifications.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

(cont)

In conclusion....why call himself a christian in the first place if he doubts his own faith, and promotes any gods at random?

You do realise that all theists are atheists when it comes to opposing religions. All religions capsize under their own philosophy. Either they're all correct...or they're all wrong. I choose the latter.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream A Christian who doesn't doubt, is probably not an honest Christian. Every Christian has been in a state of doubt, or struggles at one point or another. That doesn't mean I'm not a Christian. A real Christian will always struggle with their faith.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

That shouldnt be. It states in the bible that the bible must be taken word for word. Brett Keane found me a few passages in the bible that actually state that. So, why doubt something you're supposed to believe by command of the god in question.

The way I see it. It's obvious. The bible is riddled with so much ridicule that even brainwashed theists' question the ridiculessness of the book. It's their rational thought struggling, and that's good!

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream How is the Bible riddled with so much ridicule? For centures, people have been trying to prove the Bible wrong, and nobody has proven it to be wrong yet. It has survived for 2,000 years, and it's been translated in every known language in human history.

I believe that the Bible is a supernatural book. Nothing comes close to it.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

Purely based on self-refuting, flawed log, the bible pawns itself.

Take it from a guy who's read the damn thing 3 times over, cover to cover.

You havent spotted any contradiction yet??? It's riddled with them. You only need one flaw to show it isnt perfect. And if it isnt perfect, it isnt god's word, is it?

It matters not how many times it has been translated. It doesnt make it any less silly. It's just a pile of sillyness in many languages, that's all.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream You've only read the Bible 3 times? I read it almost every day. It's the book that I've read the most in my life.

Again, show me these contradictions.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

If yo've read it as often as you say you do, you should KNOW where they are.

And, wether you read the ugly thing more times than even Steven Hawking has doesnt lend any credence to it whatsoever. It doesnt automatically become truer or tangible.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

If yo've read it as often as you say you do, you should KNOW where they are.

And, wether you read the ugly thing more times than even Steven Hawking has doesnt lend any credence to it whatsoever. It doesnt automatically become truer or tangible.

I have read 'It', more times than the bible. Does it make that book any more truthhful? Of course not.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream No, I don't know where the contradictions are.

Please point out these so-called contradictions. Because from what I've read and studied, there are no contradictions in the Bible.

[CapnofRum]

@Transformers217 Google "Contradictions in the Bible." You'd be surprised.

[Transformers217]

@CapnofRum I have. And I was surprised to find sites that corrected the so-called contradictions.

[Domzdream]

@Transformers217

Oh, And to answer your shroud of Turin. Um...Ive done the research. Scientists have studied this and have concluded that it was painted on. Very carefully and very well. But painted. It's a hoax. It's just another attempt to keep the sheep (like yourself) in rank, and interested, Oh, and to keep filling the pockets of christianity.

[Transformers217]

@Domzdream Actually the Shroud of Turin has been proven to not be a Hoax. Modern science shows that the blood on the Shroud creates a body, and has probably shown the real face of Jesus Christ. The blood creates a 3D effect, and that's because there was a large amount of light that shot through the Shroud, and into the sky. That's why the blood got stuck on the shroud, and why it has a 3D effect. 

[MrShysterme]

@jamesblond0069 The atheists in the debates are almost always more intelligent as well.

[dwheel39]

@jamesblond0069 So, something comes from nothing, order comes from chaos and conscious, intelligent beings come from random mutations via natural selection. . . okay...and this is "logical" and "common sense" HOW??? Do you experience ANY of these theories or concepts in your life? Atheists are like the child watching a brilliant magician make a rabbit appear out of "nowhere" and accepting it truly appeared from NOTHING. I'm sorry, but NOTHING does NOT and CANNOT give you SOMETHING.

[leeroynaggins]

Yeah, Atheism...

It's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[Gwisss]

"It's like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby."

haha, brilliant

[Domzdream]

We're all agnostics, all atheists. To absolutely state that there IS no deiety puts you in the same equal opposite position as the theists. But based on philosophy and probability, one can come to a conclusion that there is no god at all. On suspicion though, not knowledge, thus being agnostic.

[DonJusty]

I am loving this guy

[kusalaviro]

Maybe you should marry him...

[wildcatjdh]

are 7 and 8 out of order?

[FeelOrange91]

its ok to say nobody knows..

[jnrosemas]

oops...I accidentally voted you down while attempting to vote you up. My apologies.

[Falcrist]

This is a VERY interesting debate, but I think (and with due respect) Mr. Jacoby missed the fact that Mr. Shermer is not an atheist. Rather, he's an Agnostic (lol @ "Militant" agnostic btw).

Jacoby says that Atheism is self defeating because in order to know with certainty that there is no god you would have to be like god anyway (omniscient at least).

But isn't it also true that hard agnosticism is self defeating because basically you're saying "I know that you can't know."

[hospitory]

Atheism/Theism has to do with belief. The term Agnosticism has to do with knowledge, so they are not mutually exclusive.

Michael Shermer is a Agnostic atheist. So, by not believing in a god he is a atheist by definition, regardless of being an agnostic or not.

[dcox12345]

Shermer is really smart, but a horrible speaker.

[ampere11]

I wouldn't say a horrible speaker but i would say bad debater.

[dcox12345]

Dude, he has fucking Asperger's.

[dexytao]

In a very generalised nutshell, the reason why we should believe in God even though we are "good" is this: We are not always "good". Sometimes our conscience gets dull. Believing and following God reminds us how to be "good". This is true because I've been through it personally. Also, merely believing in God does not make you a "Christian". Satan believes that God exists. Being a Christian means knowing God and following Him until the end.

[kev3d]

Following god where? Isn't god everywhere? You might ask yourself why is god so jealous? Why is god so afraid of humans gaining knowledge? Why does god wait 13.7 billion years to create mankind THEN 2000 years ago create a "savior"? Why does god require a sacrifice of himself, to himself, to save a creation he made from breaking rules he made impossible to follow?

[dexytao]

=) That,my friend, is for you to find out. But, to guide you: God is spirit.Dont think "humanistically" all the time. You must think spiritually and even abstractly. Followg God means knowg Him, obeying Him bc you know He loves you! I think your other questions are best discussed in another venue (500 chrctrs max. here) I'll msg u my email... Btw, excellent questions! Always qustn but, find the answr, THAT IS what God wants! (Acts 17.10 Luke 8.15))

[kev3d]

Ok, I'll be sure to start stoning disobedient children, sabbath breakers, adulterous women and homosexuals. I will kill witches, destroy any art depicting anything other than abstract shapes. Gods law endureth forever, no? Even Jesus says not one jot or tiddle of the law should pass away. Where are my rocks, ive got some stoning to do.

[myopinioncountsto]

?? Wow Hell fire and brimestone that is a condemning version of God Conservative Baptist? No that is not how he put it and how arrogant to believe your brain is capable of wholey understanding him?

[myopinioncountsto]

Follow his guidance smartypants. He is jealous because he has earned our respect n love so why turn away for our selfish self serving desires. He gives us so much time to proove even with all our knowledge we are still messing up!!!

[kev3d]

Apparently my brain is not made to even believe in "him" (God has a penis, you know) let alone understand him. I don't believe "naughty thoughts" are sinful. I don't believe boiling a lamb in it's mothers milk is sinful. I don't believe eating pigs is sinful. I follow my own guidance and I do just fine.

[quillini]

"Could God create a rock so big he couldn't lift it?" Everyone always says that's a flawed point because it violates its own premise, but that is the point, right? The very idea of God violates its own premise, and such a statement illustrates that. So what's the problem with it?

[myopinioncountsto]

First of all he has no end or beginning and because of that you are requiring to put a definitive end to God, his strength, his size his abilities. He goes on to infinity. Knowing God truly not just calling yourself a Christian is a heart condition. Many of Hitlers men believed what they were doing was right.

[kev3d]

So someone who creates every single atom in the universe, or maybe in the Multiverse, who is infinite, who has no beginning or end...that fellow cares enough about humanity to tell them how to trim their beards. God must be some kind of ego maniacal metro sexual.

[wwags33]

maybe its perfect through its imperfections.. maybe thats exactly what its designed for, to show us imperfection

[pinkcunt007]

shermer is awesome!

why bother "believing there is a god"?

[Prometheus14]

We don't know whether God exists. Those of you who are faithful (and I suppose faithful of a particular flavor, nature of God), don't really know. Do you? That upsets you. We can't prove god does not exist (like we can't prove Big Foot doesn't exist), but you can't either. We can say, "don't know", but you say, we know because the Bible (so god is also a xtian)says so!

[redchango]

Even with Shermer being a somewhat bad speaker (compared to Jacoby who is a great speaker), Jacoby is still getting owned!

[DoctorMurky]

Everyone who tries to argue that there is evidence to support the claim that God exists says that the universe began with a singularity. Even if this were true, it doesn't prove that God exists. (see "Why Darwin Matters", p. 123) The most famous physicist alive, Stephen Hawking, says outright in "A Brief History of Time" that "there was in fact no singularity at the beginning of the universe". (p. 50 in the first printing) Is Jacoby even a physicist?

[myopinioncountsto]

Where do you get our info from? There are many arenas of debate on this fact even amoung devote Christians. They don't all claim to have all the answers but that was a sloppy prejudice to say everone.

[DoctorMurky]

Sorry. Everyone = Every Christian apologist I've ever heard of. Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza, Frank Tipler and on and on. Chill out.

[happypantsman10]

Religious people are retarded.

[underyourgrace]

I suppose this would be much more interesting if shermer was making any sort of point.

Jacoby is pro, and i think he gives all the glory to God. God is always going to win a debate, mainly because he is the creator of the whole concept.

people say 'i believe science and therefore i dont believe in God'. Doug says, 'i believe in science, and therefore God exists.'

God is real. become a disciple of Christ. dont live your life for the devil.

[unclexbob]

"Doug says, 'i believe in science, and therefore God exists.' "

No, what Doug says is "I believe in bits and pieces of science that make God look cool (and don't believe the stuff that brings my faith into question)

Granted he's better than most theists. He actually believes evolution is mostly correct. Now if only he could convince the millions of creationists to stop making x'tians look bad....

[amandaraec]

Understanding God's work in us, His love for us, this also is motivation for our daily decisions. We make choices, that often override the inate morals/social standards, however, choosing to follow God restrains us from the human sinful desires that wage war against our soul. Just my thoughts. Appreciate the debate, good food for thought

[eruagnostic]

That it comfort you personally, doesn't make it true.

[amandaraec]

Socially we have standards of living that are acceptable and not acceptable. However, this does not dis-prove whether God exists, so I dont see much of an arguement here. For Christians, I feel like believing,accepting God confirms our standard of living and directs us more effectively than just the inate sense of morals, basing decisions on emotions only.

[amandaraec]

seems that this arguement is not really related to "does God exist". Appears this arguement is more about morality, where does it come from, is it inate, or do Christians have morals because they believe in God? Of course, I believe we are born with a sense of right and wrong, morals can be inate. We have emotions, it makes us human, separates us from other living creatures...

[unclexbob]

since all societies, groups, cultures, faiths and non-faiths have morals, the question of where morals come from is completely pointless

The argument is who's morals are superior and why, and that is always a hilarious argument. Only humble people get to play that argument *laugh*

x'tian morals have evolved right along with the moral zeitgeist so I see no superiority at all personally

[unclexbob]

shermer pwned