Friday, December 17, 2010

Fox Business: Does God Exist? - Michael Shermer vs. Father Jonathan Morris


Play all videos (2)
December 16, 2010 on Fox Business
(Thanks '1984')

32 comments:

  1. Why Schermer??? He's a poor thinker and a poor debater. I certainly wouldn't choose him to represent my position. 

    ReplyDelete
  2. I like him okay.  He has an interesting perspective.  It's the format of these debates.  I'm glad he showed respect and didn't interrupt like that priest did.  How ungodly of him to be so rude.

    ReplyDelete
  3. wait,  FOX Buisiness???  What the hell does the existance of god have to do with business??

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Stossel and his show is Libertarian and as you all know Shermer is a Libertarian so there you go! 

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree, I havent seen a compelling debate from <span>Schermer before, if someone has please link us! </span> :-D this was very dissapointing.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Schermer performed very well here you must admit!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can't stand that terribly annoying "preachy" voice of 
    <span>Father Jonathan Morris</span>

    ReplyDelete
  8. After less than one minute this ws all in suport of faith. Of course being MenInFrox News the talking heads ALL believe in gods.

    The presenter doesn't know what agnostic means. Another S E Cupp.

    Plus the old oxymoron, god gave us free will.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yeah, he did just fine in this debate, using only reasoned arguments. The only poor thinker seems to be Denis who can't disassociate his political views with the current topic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1. Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge of a god.  The only reason to claim you're agnostic is to shy away from the social stigma of atheism.

    2. The Father is a poor Catholic.  He seems to think (like many others) that "god" is a nice touchy warm feeling.  He ignores the doctrines of the Church and picks and chooses the passages to support his preconceived notions.

    3. God (and Jesus) gave PLENTY of evidence in the past.  Pillars of fire and smoke, plagues, parting seas, drowning the planet, walking on water, showing people holes in his hands, etc.  Why don't these things happen anymore?  We are told FAITH is more important.

    4. Godwin.

    5. Stalin "hated religion" because it was competition to his totalitarian rule.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Shermer didn't even have time to TALK! The Father has his opening statement, uninterrupted and as soon as Michael tries to name his three reasons, the Father interrupts during every one of them! And he continues to steamroll over Shermer throughout the whole thing.

    And oh the irony, when the Father accuses Michael of giving old arguments. I'm sorry, but the father has only OLD answers, and just because an argument is old, doesn't mean it's untrue. It may very well mean that argument needs repeating, because people just don't listen - case in point, Father Morris in this discussion!

    ReplyDelete
  12. God controls the invisible hand?

    ReplyDelete
  13. The arguments aginst religion are old and tired and still stand because they are true. The father knows this and would rather lie to uphold his religion than SPEAK THE TRUTH and have his religion be relegated to the backwaters of history. He is a sick and obnoxious psychopath. It is interesting that Fox News woud air such a religion degrading interview. Is the tide starting to change? Ron Paul took a seat on the oversight commission of the Federal Reserve. He is very libertarian in his views and a darling of the Tea Party, but libertarian is not friendly to religious establishment. Politics are getting interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Arguments against religion are old, but religion is even older. Libertarians may be anti-religious, but for most of them a fundamentalist with a laissez-faire viewpoint about business would take precedent over an atheist without one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ron Paul is an evolution denier and if I'm not mistaken has been unforthcoming as to whether he's a young Earth creationist.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yea Ron Paul just knows that his religious beliefs and government should NEVER intertwine.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What I like about Shermer is that he always conducts himself as a reasonable scientist. That may not always be effective in debates with a bunch of religeous ingrates watching, but he "keeps it real". On the other hand, Hitchens always seems to do so well: he is not a scientist, but he doesn't mind interrupting and has such powerful rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  18. And robs people blind?

    ReplyDelete
  19. But probably more of a real reason is that..

    Because as Napoleon said, it keeps the common people quiet.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Actually Ron Paul hasn't have that high approval ratings among the partiers:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002529-503544.html

    Favorable:
    Palin 66%
    Bush(!) 57%
    Ron Paul 28% (an actual small government proponent)

    ReplyDelete
  21. "If you don't believe in God.... it's a lot easier to treat people however you want." This is the dumbest statement a religious person can make. It is almost an admission that if it were not for his belief in a god, he would be an utterly depraved, immoral human being.

    Also, I should be able to treat people however I want. If I treat them badly, they should avoid me, and I if I treat them harmfully, I should be punished. Regardless, I should have the right to expressmy own will as opposed to worry about the dictates of someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  22. What's wrong with Shermer? He's a skeptic with tons of knowledge and many years of experience dealing with.. well, what skeptics deal with. He knows his stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Shermer did well. i dont see what's your problem with him

    ReplyDelete
  24. Wow, you have no idea what the hell you're talking about do you?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "The amazing thing about free will is that I can actually put someone into slavery."

    Wait, what?!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Shermer let Stossel get away with his incorrect definitions of agnostic and atheist.  Stossel said that as an agnostic he remains open to the possibility, and that an atheist, Shermer is sure there's no god.  Nonsense!

    Theism = belief in a god
    Atheism = lack of a belief in a god

    Gnosticism = claims to have knowledge
    Agnosticism = does not claim to have knowledge

    Agnosticism and Atheism are NOT mutually exclusive.

    You can be an agnostic theist - ex: liberal christian who admits there's no evidence but chooses to believe anyway.

    You can be a gnostic theist - ex: fundamentalist christian who claims to know and believe.

    You can be an agnostic atheist - ex: does not believe because there is no evidence, but is always open to examine any evidence provided (Most atheists fit this category, including Shermer and Dawkins)

    gnostic atheist - ex: does not believe and claims there is evidence for the nonexistence of a god.  (It is possible to disprove specific religious claims about a particular faith)

    I'm sure my definitions could use a little tweaking, but technically, Stossel is an atheist because he doesn't believe.  Specifically, he's an agnostic atheist.

    I agree with previous posters, "Atheist" has become a dirty word in American society, and people will call themselves Agnostic to be more PC.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I like Shermer but I don't think he did as good as he could have done. The whole Hitler thing is easy to refute and he didn't really offer any statement to counter the claim. He could have pointed out that Hitler's own book stated how he felt about atheism and that he thought it should be wiped out. The Father can't claim he was an atheist when Hitler's own words contradict that claim. And I get so tired of him being so polite without at least pointing out the rudeness of the Father's interruptions. These debaters need to start picking apart their counterparts statements to show utter absurdity of them. Andy's point above and the slavery issue are two good examples of where Shermer could have turned those statements against the Father, thus discrediting his own position and eroding his moral superiority.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The video editting of when to cut away to the crowd and who to cut to is what make it seem liek he did poorly.  Try listening to the debate without watching it, and it's a whole other story.  Stossel's program is very atheist friendly, but apparantly a producer at Fox wanted this interview cut to give it a pro-religion spin.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Considering the time frame, and that it was more a conversation, I think Shermer got a lot of good points out.   

    ReplyDelete
  30. The burden of proof is on the believer.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The burden of proof is up to the believer. Conversely, bringing Hitler into any discussion (unless your specifically talking about him already) automatically negates its credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  32. R£ligion $tink$ of mon€¥December 19, 2010 at 6:37 AM

    Stalin was indoctrinated by the Russian Orthodox church, the totalitarian mindset was there from the beginning.

    Sure the church was his enemy but that didn´t prevent him from forging an alliance with the church during WWII.

    ReplyDelete