Author Topic: irreligiosophy  (Read 30799 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26014
  • they/them
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #225 on: February 08, 2012, 03:13:13 AM »
Too bad they are gone =/, their debate with the evidence for faith was epic.
Those are the episodes I was looking for when I discovered that Chuck is planning on doing a new podcast. :D I posted them in your "ALKSDJFSTUPIDHOVINDHULKSMASHASLGH" thread.

Lol, it was just sad how hard those guys got schooled! I re-listened to it right after you reminded me they exist.
You have a strange definition of sad. I thought it was pretty righteous. ;D

I mean, I started to feel bad for them. They just stopped talking at a few points, utterly defeated.
Yeah... I definitely felt bad for them. At least while Chuck was stripping their flesh from their bones. When they insisted on bringing up the same. god. damn. points. again. and. again. even though they'd been addressed. Then I stopped feeling bad for them.

I might be thinking of a debate from Reasonable Doubts on free will versus determinism, though. I'll have to relisten to the E4F debatathons.
I am become destroyer of biology.

Offline Anders

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #226 on: February 10, 2012, 04:47:03 AM »
They debated Reasonable Doubts as well?

Have to give them points for courage. Or sheer, burning stupidity.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Charles Darwin

Offline Gerbig

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3048
  • Stream Crosser
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #227 on: February 10, 2012, 04:59:34 AM »
They debated Reasonable Doubts as well?

Have to give them points for courage. Or sheer, burning stupidity.

Did they? Are those episodes still on itunes?
Did they get crushed as harshly?

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26014
  • they/them
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #228 on: February 10, 2012, 05:13:10 AM »
I don't think they debated Reasonable Doubts. They debated Evidence 4 Faith.

They did do an episode (or two) where they make fun of every single podcast that gets mentioned in some sort of internet awards. Reasonable Doubts and SGU both get mentioned, iirc. And at the end, they spend a good ten to fifteen minutes being assholes to their own podcast. It was hilarious.

eta: The eps:
 http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1024
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1044
« Last Edit: February 10, 2012, 05:15:32 AM by pandamonium »
I am become destroyer of biology.

Offline Ravenhull

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1027
  • Not a weirdo... honest...
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #229 on: February 10, 2012, 08:34:34 AM »
I think they are saying that Evidence 4 Faith debated Reasonable Doubts, though I am not sure...
"You can only know where you're going if you know where you've been." - James Burke - Connections

Offline mindme

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8761
    • http://www.yrad.com/cs
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #230 on: February 10, 2012, 08:38:16 AM »
They did poke fun at Reasonable Doubts during their two part take down of all the religious podcasts out there (both believer and skeptical).
"Because the world needs more Mark Crislip."

Conspiracy Skeptic Podcast
Korean Podcast
Michael Goudeau, Vegas Comedy Entertainer Available for Trade Shows

Offline Anders

  • Deleted
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *
  • Posts: 13805
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #231 on: February 10, 2012, 08:57:36 AM »
I think they are saying that Evidence 4 Faith debated Reasonable Doubts, though I am not sure...

This. Did E4F debate Reasonable Doubts and if they did so, was it a sign of courage, stupidity, being so drunk you wouldn't notice it if your own daughters tried to shag you, or all three?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Charles Darwin

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4055
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #232 on: February 10, 2012, 09:41:03 AM »
I think they are saying that Evidence 4 Faith debated Reasonable Doubts, though I am not sure...

This. Did E4F debate Reasonable Doubts and if they did so, was it a sign of courage, stupidity, being so drunk you wouldn't notice it if your own daughters tried to shag you, or all three?
I have listened to all there podcast and I don't remember hearing one. I would think that ex Mormons and ex JW would be very hard to debate because of their back ground and knowledge in the bible. That is why Dan Barker is good at what he does.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Offline seaotter

  • Drunkenly yelling LITTLE WING!
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 27022
  • My homunculus is a grammar troll!
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #233 on: February 10, 2012, 10:15:45 AM »
The reasonable doubts guys destroyed some group over free will. It really got embarrassing.
"There is no use trying," said Alice; "one can't believe impossible things." Lewis Carroll

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4055
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #234 on: February 10, 2012, 10:35:34 AM »
The reasonable doubts guys destroyed some group over free will. It really got embarrassing.
I can see that happening.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."
Douglas Adams

Offline Movius

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #235 on: February 10, 2012, 11:42:46 AM »
The debate episodes ended up just showing how pointless such debates are. I had little interest in them.

The only interesting antagonistic guest they had was Shirley Phelps-Roper, purely for the insight into how she operates.

Offline Johnny Slick

  • "Goddammit, Slick."
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 12767
  • Fake Ass Skeptic
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #236 on: February 10, 2012, 11:54:07 AM »
Wait, Mrs. Roper is a religious nut? I'd have thought that all those years living next to Jack Tripper would have moderated her stance a little bit.
Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day.

- Ralph Waldo Emerson

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26014
  • they/them
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #237 on: February 10, 2012, 01:57:49 PM »
Wait, Mrs. Roper is a religious nut?
She's a Phelps--it's genetic.
I am become destroyer of biology.

Offline craig

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2804
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #238 on: February 10, 2012, 08:28:46 PM »
Hey!!!  :P
"Why ya gotta act like you know when you don't know....It's okay if you don't know everything." --- Ben Folds

Offline pandamonium

  • Skeptical Beer Inspector
  • Planetary Skeptic
  • *
  • Posts: 26014
  • they/them
Re: irreligiosophy
« Reply #239 on: February 10, 2012, 09:44:48 PM »
Hey!!!  :P
Are you claiming to be a Phelps Phelps? Or a different flavor of Phelps? Because the only Phelpses I know that are batshit crazy are the God-Hates-Phelps.
I am become destroyer of biology.

 

personate-rain