100: Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?

By on September 16, 2013

Colin and Tom discuss the ‘Life, the Universe and Nothing’ debate series video ‘Is it reasonable to believe there is a God?’, the first in our “book club” series. Even if you haven’t seen the video, the debate serves as an excellent primer on modern atheism and its intellectual counterpoint.

References:

Discussion

Ron

I enjoyed your discussion of the Krauss/Craig debate. I simply cannot watch Craig without gagging at this point, so it is good to hear his points restated by someone who is reasonable. I find his style so exemplifies the totalitarian nature of religion (his arguments to me consist of nothing but, “Look, I am using big words. They have big words, we have big words. But we also have GOD! Therefore, we win.”). He’s such a smug fucking bastard, too. I can’t see him without wanting to punch him in the face. And then when he opens his mouth I want to stuff a gasoline soaked rag in it and set it on fire.

So I commend you for even being able to listen to his equivocal, deceptive, authoritarian nonsense.

Paul

Thanks for the debate and the followup discussion.
The bottom line for me is that these debates are more about my guy vs your guy regarding competing belief systems. It’s more competition than discussion, more about winning than learning. I don’t believe in god, I don’t believe in a magical universe(s), if magic was real than belief in science or laws of any kind would be unnecessary, in fact it would be unrealistic because magic trumps the temporal. So unless Dr. Craig can prove god exists in an empirical sense this is all so much wasted air. If magic existed than what could we depend on but the capricious power of the wand? We gave up magic or divinity in the enlightenment and I don’t see us going back to that. With that being said I would like to see a development of an atheist social and moral belief system that isn’t based on a reductionist scientific perspective.

Ron

Paul points out the trap that theists find themselves in consistently (and consistently ignore or squirm out of). If evidence of supernaturalism can be discovered empirically, provably and consistently then it ceases to be “supernatural” and merely becomes part of nature. An intervening god is merely a new aspect of nature. To discover god is kill god.

Theists are constantly in the position of asserting that magic is real while simultaneously–if they are honest–discarding all evidence of magic. Which is why they are so often dishonest. They have to simultaneously maintain the position that god does not cure cancer while winking, “But we know he does… he cured YOUR cancer, not all those other people’s.”

Post a comment


Copyright © 2009–2014 Christopher Thielen & others. Some rights reserved.