Stefan Molyneux debate

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

Well I believe that everything is a part of God because God is everything which is consistent with the Jewish model of God.  Much like I might create the hairdo I wear for the day, God created the universe as we know it and set the physical laws we must obey and are discovering and learning more of every year.  I don't see an inconsistency there.

Well, God presumably either created the universe (deist, monotheist) or he/she/it is the universe (pantheist).  If you think both are true, I'd like to hear how. 

I just made a lame analogy.  I create the hair do I wear for the day.  Is the hair part of me or not?  Did I not create the hair / do?

[Rillion]

I just made a lame analogy.  I create the hair do I wear for the day.  Is the hair part of me or not?  Did I not create the hair / do?

Sure, you created a hairdo.  But all that means is that you altered a part of yourself.  You didn't create yourself, because generally creating something means that you exist before it does.  That's what creation means-- the bringing into existence of a new thing.  If the thing was already there, there was nothing to create.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

I just made a lame analogy.  I create the hair do I wear for the day.  Is the hair part of me or not?  Did I not create the hair / do?

Sure, you created a hairdo.  But all that means is that you altered a part of yourself.  You didn't create yourself, because generally creating something means that you exist before it does.  That's what creation means-- the bringing into existence of a new thing.  If the thing was already there, there was nothing to create.

Ex nihilio.

[Sam Gunn (since nobody got Admiral Naismith)]

I just made a lame analogy.  I create the hair do I wear for the day.  Is the hair part of me or not?  Did I not create the hair / do?

Sure, you created a hairdo.  But all that means is that you altered a part of yourself.  You didn't create yourself, because generally creating something means that you exist before it does.  That's what creation means-- the bringing into existence of a new thing.  If the thing was already there, there was nothing to create.

Ex nihilio.

creatio ex deo

[Rillion]

Sure, you created a hairdo.  But all that means is that you altered a part of yourself.  You didn't create yourself, because generally creating something means that you exist before it does.  That's what creation means-- the bringing into existence of a new thing.  If the thing was already there, there was nothing to create.

Ex nihilio.

"Ex nihilo" (from nothing) is how people say God made the universe, not how God made himself.  Not that it would make sense either way. 

[MacFall]

I agree with Stefan - you (unbelievers) can't argue with religious people.

I believe the supernatural exists. Others define "existence" to be synonymous with the natural. I believe that it is possible for something greater than this Universe to exist, and that such a thing need not be bound by the rules governing this Universe. Others say that is a contradiction in terms. I believe it is okay to choose to believe in things which cannot be scientifically observed. Others think I'm a lunatic for that belief. There is absolutely nothing to be gained though debate between the two sides.

[Turd Ferguson]

Im with Stefan on about 99 percent of everything he says. He just irritates me when he calls agnostics intellectually lazy or dishonest.


If someone has a box in their hands and asks you to guess whats in it, its pointless to try and guess if theyre never gonna show you whats inside the box. Thats what being an agnostic means to me, and to say that the universe was created by NOTHING is lazier than just saying "hell, I dont know........ nobody knows" which is the only reasonable response if you ask me.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Im with Stefan on about 99 percent of everything he says. He just irritates me when he calls agnostics intellectually lazy or dishonest.


If someone has a box in their hands and asks you to guess whats in it, its pointless to try and guess if theyre never gonna show you whats inside the box. Thats what being an agnostic means to me, and to say that the universe was created by NOTHING is lazier than just saying "hell, I dont know........ nobody knows" which is the only reasonable response if you ask me.

An agnostic could make the argument that nobody can know.

[Turd Ferguson]

Im with Stefan on about 99 percent of everything he says. He just irritates me when he calls agnostics intellectually lazy or dishonest.


If someone has a box in their hands and asks you to guess whats in it, its pointless to try and guess if theyre never gonna show you whats inside the box. Thats what being an agnostic means to me, and to say that the universe was created by NOTHING is lazier than just saying "hell, I dont know........ nobody knows" which is the only reasonable response if you ask me.

An agnostic could make the argument that nobody can know.

Yeah, thats pretty much my point. If you argue any stance other than "nobody can know", the burden of proof lies on the person claiming someone can know, yet they can never prove it. Stefan calls it lazy when you say nobody can know, as if  only you worked a little harder and researched, you would come to the unquestionalbe conclusion that there absolutely cannot be a god.

[Diogenes The Cynic]

Im with Stefan on about 99 percent of everything he says. He just irritates me when he calls agnostics intellectually lazy or dishonest.


If someone has a box in their hands and asks you to guess whats in it, its pointless to try and guess if theyre never gonna show you whats inside the box. Thats what being an agnostic means to me, and to say that the universe was created by NOTHING is lazier than just saying "hell, I dont know........ nobody knows" which is the only reasonable response if you ask me.

An agnostic could make the argument that nobody can know.

Yeah, thats pretty much my point. If you argue any stance other than "nobody can know", the burden of proof lies on the person claiming someone can know, yet they can never prove it. Stefan calls it lazy when you say nobody can know, as if  only you worked a little harder and researched, you would come to the unquestionalbe conclusion that there absolutely cannot be a god.

Up to a few months ago, I would have agreed with Molyneux on most of his points. I would have agreed with him that agnostics are intellectually lazy, and everyone should try to back up their beliefs with good points. Obviously he and I have different conclusions, but I do think that intellectual agnostics could exist, after I read more on why their beliefs were as such.

[MacFall]

BTW everyone, just to remind you - your parents abused you constantly and if you think you love them you're lying to yourself.

[Johnson]

Sorry, I just found this thread.

Rillion was correct at the beginning of his thread when she noted that I'm an atheist. Most people who have been in any level of religious discussion with me must sort have already knew that I was playing devil's advocate in that debate. It's a position I often take in debates with religious people... I decided to have the discussion with Stefan because I am passionate about being able to communicate that way because I PLAY an agnostic often in my online debates with religious people because they often shut down when talking to atheists.
(Therefore, I feel that those who use dishonesty as a tool, should have that same tool used against them in both religion and politics... and yes I am saying that the religious, like politicians, are dishonest)

Therefore, the REAL point of my debate with Stefan, was to have a radio show that both atheists and agnostics could listen to, and hopefully be a little more willing to come out and openly discuss and question religion and traditional belief systems.

I wanted to show that agnostics can come out and openly question religion. Even though I wasn't really legitimately coming from the position of a TRUE Agnostic... There is no real reason why agnostics can't question all the testable and definable properties, assumptions, and claims that religion makes. I wanted to get that message out there and hopefully just promote even just a LITTLE more pro-reason and pro-rationality discussions.

I will likely continue to argue from the standpoint of a strong agnostic, because I don't feel that atheist's arguments for use with the religious work nearly as well as the strong-agnostic position does - which focuses more on the fraud and uncertainty, while keeping the believer's mind from going into a full on defense mode that results in your side being ignored or twisted by belief protection systems of the brain.  

[Diogenes The Cynic]

At this point, do you think anyone can bring anything new into the argument?

[hellbilly]

At this point, do you think anyone can bring anything new into the argument?

Yes, the incorrect side can finally admit that there's no point in arguing in favor of something non-existent.

Thanks for the post Johnson. I'd been thinking you really were agnostic.

[Johnson]

At this point, do you think anyone can bring anything new into the argument?

That's a very collectivist statement. You aren't having "the argument" with every person. People are individuals - you know that. Everyone handles a discussion differently, and so yes, I think that there are probably plenty of people that have heard one style of argumentation and gotten nothing from it.