Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

Media => Podcasts => Topic started by: seaotter on June 26, 2010, 10:58:58 PM

Title: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on June 26, 2010, 10:58:58 PM
I love this podcast. Smart-assed but smart. Pz is on the latest one , and Mindme interviewed the hosts.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Rand Walker on June 27, 2010, 12:01:34 AM
I got turned on to this by mindme's interview as well.  The show is awesome I love the no mercy no holds barred iconoclasm.   
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Crowskie on June 27, 2010, 12:48:15 AM
This is probably my favorite podcast, but I CAN. NOT. listen to the interview shows in bed unless I want to go to sleep as fast as possible. No clue why, as the interviews are really interesting, but they just put me strait to sleep.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on June 27, 2010, 12:50:05 AM
Definitely something for your sister in law.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Crowskie on June 27, 2010, 12:50:21 AM
Also @mindme, since he will undoubtedly make his way to this thread, you should try to interview PZ on your podcast.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Joe B on June 27, 2010, 03:22:29 AM
I got turned on to this by mindme's interview as well.  The show is awesome I love the no mercy no holds barred iconoclasm.   

Wait wait wait!!!!!!!!!!!  There was a irreligiosophy-conspiracy skeptic cross over?????


I don't remember that at all (admittedly I'm drunk, so it's possible I'll remember tomorrow).

That seems both awesome and a total mismatch of styles (soft spoken mindme with raging assholes Chuck and Laton.)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Caffiene on June 27, 2010, 03:31:59 AM
Im not sure if its what theyre referring to because its one host, not both, but Chuck was the guest for the "White Salamander Letter" Conspiracy Skeptic episode (august 09)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Tatyana on June 27, 2010, 04:06:20 AM
I just caught up with all their podcasts, and I love their show.

I highly appreciate the use of the word 'retard' as it is one of my fav words.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Rand Walker on June 27, 2010, 09:30:19 AM
Im not sure if its what theyre referring to because its one host, not both, but Chuck was the guest for the "White Salamander Letter" Conspiracy Skeptic episode (august 09)
That is it. I should have been more exact. Thx.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on September 15, 2010, 08:09:06 PM
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/)

This one was great. They had an interview with the son of Fred Phelps, who is an atheist and local leader of CSI. Love it.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on September 15, 2010, 08:10:53 PM
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/)

This one was great. They had an interview with the son of Fred Phelps, who is an atheist and local leader of CSI. Love it.

Wow, talk about the apple falling far from the tree. I think Phelps' apple flew to the moon.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: SkepticalVegan on September 15, 2010, 08:55:17 PM
Love the show...Mormon Expression is also a great one if your into Mormons, my favorite episodes are on the Three Nephites (the stories closely resemble modern urban legends) , The Dream Mine, and on the Lost Tribes
 on the ten tribes episode I learned that some mormons believe the lost ten tribes live in the hollow earth and travel in and out of the poles in UFOs
oh and that Bigfoot is actually Cain :laugh:
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: moj on September 16, 2010, 07:40:22 AM
Yay, it's new to me, I will have to check it out when I get home.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: James on September 21, 2010, 05:42:56 PM
This is my favourite, its less serious and less scientific than other podcasts so I find it really entertaining.

The recent Phelps' shows were both good, quite a contrast between the rational son and the bat-shit crazy Shirley!

One of the best episodes is their disection of Kent Hovind's "dissertation" it is absolutely hilarious.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on September 21, 2010, 05:44:03 PM
I just listened to the Nathan Phelps interview. I liked it. I'll probably listen to some of the back episodes if I get a chance.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on September 21, 2010, 07:15:46 PM
Best Segment Ever:  gay penguins.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on September 21, 2010, 07:21:31 PM
I think that the Skunk Dicks are funnier.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on September 21, 2010, 09:58:46 PM
Best Segment Ever:  gay penguins.

Loved the penguins.

(http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/gay-penguins.gif)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Crowskie on September 30, 2010, 06:48:01 PM
I just listened to the Nathan Phelps interview. I liked it. I'll probably listen to some of the back episodes if I get a chance.

Interview with Shirley Phelps-Roper (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1410)

They decided not to post it to the feed.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on September 30, 2010, 11:29:13 PM
I just listened to the Nathan Phelps interview. I liked it. I'll probably listen to some of the back episodes if I get a chance.

Interview with Shirley Phelps-Roper (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1410)

They decided not to post it to the feed.

I can't not. *dives in*
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Desert Fox on October 01, 2010, 09:57:11 PM
You will be sorry  ;D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on October 02, 2010, 02:51:43 AM
I've only gotten half way through. Jesus Christ.

Jesus. Christ.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on October 02, 2010, 03:14:33 AM
I've only gotten half way through. Jesus Christ.

Jesus. Christ.


I can tell you right now, the 2nd half isn't any 'better'.

This interview should be required Halloween listening........

f***ing scary.

Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Boßel on October 02, 2010, 03:55:49 AM
I've only gotten half way through. Jesus Christ.

Jesus. Christ.


I can tell you right now, the 2nd half isn't any 'better'.

This interview should be required Halloween listening........

f***ing scary.

Indeed. It would be a great background noise for those walk through haunted houses. She made me jump a few times during the interview.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on October 02, 2010, 04:00:12 AM
I've only gotten half way through. Jesus Christ.

Jesus. Christ.


I can tell you right now, the 2nd half isn't any 'better'.

This interview should be required Halloween listening........

f***ing scary.

Indeed. It would be a great background noise for those walk through haunted houses. She made me jump a few times during the interview.



Me too!!

*summoning Manny from my avatar to exorcize her*


'The power of Kathy Griffin compels you, the power of Kathy Griffin COMPELS YOU!!!'


Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: whitedevilbrewing on October 02, 2010, 10:12:32 PM
I'm not going to listen to it, so anyone care to go over the highlights?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: SkepticalVegan on October 02, 2010, 11:27:49 PM
come on, just put it on 2x speed...it'll be over before you know it, though i had to listen to it in 10 minute increments with time to cool off in between
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on October 03, 2010, 03:45:09 AM
I'm not going to listen to it, so anyone care to go over the highlights?

So far as I've listened to it, there's been a lot of yelling.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: goodthink on October 03, 2010, 05:01:04 AM
the random singing was my favourite
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Desert Fox on October 14, 2010, 06:59:04 PM
Listened to the one with Fred Phelp's son. Seems like a pretty down to earth guy.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on October 14, 2010, 10:09:03 PM
Listened to the one with Fred Phelp's son. Seems like a pretty down to earth guy.

I think if I were to have come out of similar circumstances still alive and mostly sane, I'd mellow out, too. What could be more exciting than having lived through being a Phelps kid? And I don't mean exciting in a good way, of course.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on October 27, 2010, 03:23:55 PM
Anyone else upset that they haven't put up a new episode yet.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: goodthink on October 27, 2010, 04:09:34 PM
Nah, they are geeking out over halloween. IIRC they did more or less the same last year.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: whitedevilbrewing on October 27, 2010, 07:50:12 PM
Ya they do a massive haunted house, sounds pretty cool.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on October 27, 2010, 08:44:54 PM
I can listen to about half of their podcasts.  I love their depth of knowledge.  Their tone can really set my back up at times.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on October 28, 2010, 02:46:32 AM
I'm enjoying the dick jokes. :P
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on October 28, 2010, 02:58:05 AM
I can listen to about half of their podcasts.  I love their depth of knowledge.  Their tone can really set my back up at times.


Ditto.

Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Tatyana on October 31, 2010, 05:38:22 AM
They make me laugh, and I like their shocked rantings.

They speak for me and say all the things I would want to say about religion, like 'how retarded'.

:)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on October 31, 2010, 02:54:20 PM
I like their attitude towards their fans :D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on October 31, 2010, 05:30:27 PM
Definitly!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 01, 2010, 02:21:16 AM
I've been listening to older episodes a few at a time (30 minute commute from home to work, or from home to school, or from school to work means I need a lot of ear candy) and I'm finding them delicious. They're like the immature little brother of Reasonable Doubts. I'm loving it. :D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 01, 2010, 06:51:16 PM
These guys need to fix their website.

Despite always hearing about e-mails from listeners, I couldn't find an "email us" link anywhere on their site.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Caffiene on November 01, 2010, 06:56:48 PM
Its on the "About" page.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 01, 2010, 07:29:46 PM
Its on the "About" page.

Okay.

I sent them this...
(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 08, 2010, 05:07:56 PM
Did Jesus finally kill them or something?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: goodthink on November 08, 2010, 05:28:33 PM
I believe they have a show coming.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on November 08, 2010, 06:12:39 PM
I believe they have a show coming.

Your "belief" is meaningless without empirical evidence ;)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 09, 2010, 02:12:32 AM
I believe they're lazy b*st*rds who've said as much on multiple shows :D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on November 09, 2010, 06:17:25 AM
I listen more I think I can put my finger on what I find grating. They remind me of the morning "zoo crew" local radio djs.  All we need is them sipping loudly on coffee, more poo jokes, and more ignorance and we are there.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: whitedevilbrewing on November 09, 2010, 01:46:29 PM
I believe they have a show coming.

Your "belief" is meaningless without empirical evidence ;)

http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1444 (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1444)

Suck it Craig!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on November 09, 2010, 01:51:53 PM
I believe they have a show coming.

Your "belief" is meaningless without empirical evidence ;)

http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1444 (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1444)

Suck it Craig!

A true skeptic is always willing to accept new conclusions based on new evidence.

(All the while still desperately clinging to the belief that everyone else just made up their minds based on faulty logic and he is the only true skeptic).
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 09, 2010, 10:26:57 PM
Here you go IAN http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml)
 Political Mormonism.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 10, 2010, 06:14:34 PM
Here you go IAN http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml)
 Political Mormonism.

Thanks. I'll listen this weekend.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Evil Eye on November 10, 2010, 06:21:51 PM
I already have all their episodes. You just need to use the big iPod.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 10, 2010, 06:28:40 PM
I already have all their episodes. You just need to use the big iPod.
Or, my own iPod. ::)

For some reason, despite all the other podcasts showing the last five, Irreligiosophy always shows the last 51. I don't get it either, but it doesn't bother me. Don't mess it up.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 11, 2010, 01:05:49 AM
I listen more I think I can put my finger on what I find grating. They remind me of the morning "zoo crew" local radio djs.  All we need is them sipping loudly on coffee, more poo jokes, and more ignorance and we are there.

I'm pretty sure I've heard a couple of poop jokes. I don't think we're likely to get much ignorance - maybe a lot of immaturity, but I'm okay with that.

I'll also point out that their jokes usually have substance (not including the masturbation jokes).
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 11, 2010, 07:54:37 AM
Joseph Smith was obviously a psychopath.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 12, 2010, 04:12:58 AM
Joseph Smith was obviously a psychopath.

One man's psychopath is another man's prophet.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: I am Nintendo on November 12, 2010, 06:54:49 PM
One man's psychopath is another man's prophet.

This is my new signature! ;D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 17, 2010, 07:32:13 PM
Prop 8 edition is freaking awesome.

http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on December 15, 2010, 05:51:18 PM
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/irrelig_rss.xml)

Don't think these guys will be having the irreligiosophy folks on their show, well maybe they will invite Leighton.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on March 07, 2011, 10:01:42 PM
Has anyone listened to the latest double whammy on this yet?  I got about 10 minutes into part two before I decided I'd probably better load part one.  In that time, they laid some serious smack down on the evidence 4 faith guys.  Is the beating that bad for the rest of the time?  I'm not sure if I can listen to that sort of pummeling for 2 hours.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 07, 2011, 10:07:28 PM
They aren't playing nice this time? (Runs for the ipod)  >:D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on March 07, 2011, 10:27:05 PM
They aren't playing nice this time? (Runs for the ipod)  >:D

oh god.  it's really not nice.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: whitedevilbrewing on March 08, 2011, 01:49:15 AM
I gotta wait for the recap show, I can't listen to shit like that.  Some of the arguments those guys made after the first debate were so stupid I felt like weeping on their behalf.  The one guy literally argued that you could disprove the 2nd law of thermodynamics by hooking a steak up to a car battery.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 08, 2011, 02:47:43 AM
I listened to about half of part 2 (none of part 1), and no, there were no kid gloves on this time around.  Personally, I found it an excersise in analysing cognative dissonence.

[Man, I wish my work computer had auto spell-check... ugh...]
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 08, 2011, 03:40:28 AM
I'm all up-to-date with Irreligiosophy. I'm pretty sure that Chuck and Leighton bent the E4F guys over and pounded their sweet cherry asses for an hour straight (rhetorically speaking). I might have to listen to those eps again. Not the original interview, though, because it was kind of annoying. There was no actual debate, for the love of Grog.

The Hovind thesis episodes have been great, too. The poem... oh god, the poem. :D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 08, 2011, 04:17:08 AM
Personally, I love the reply to E4F's post 'debate' episodes after the first one, especially the detailed talk on 2nd Law and Entropy.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 08, 2011, 04:23:33 AM
Personally, I love the reply to E4F's post 'debate' episodes after the first one, especially the detailed talk on 2nd Law and Entropy.
Yeah, I totally loved that. I can't say that I completely understood it, but I still enjoyed it. The worst part, for me, about being such a science nerd geek is that I don't actually understand most science. I get by... but I'm not true scientist.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Crowskie on March 08, 2011, 04:44:00 AM
Listening to 98 now. Fucking. Brutal.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 08, 2011, 04:45:41 AM
Listening to 98 now. Fucking. Brutal.
It's out! Oh, oh, must download NOW.

oy, there are two new eps. wtf?! I checked like two days ago and there weren't any new eps since the Hovind finale ep. Oh well, I'll get over it.

eta: ooooh, i see, they were released the same day. It would seem that they were released the day after the last day that I checked to see if there were new eps. :(
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on March 08, 2011, 04:43:03 PM
I listened to both hours today.

I keep checking my shoes, expecting them to be covered in blood!  It really was a slaughter.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 08, 2011, 05:58:35 PM
I'm about half through the second ep. Holy crap. All the silences after Chuck asks a hard questions are sooo awkward. I almost feel bad for the E4F guys. Almost.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 08, 2011, 06:35:17 PM
I'm converting to Christianity just to make these guys feel better. Holy shit! Now please there is no way anyone could listen to that and think those guys weren't slaughtered.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 08, 2011, 07:08:28 PM
I love that the got to my favorite apologetic. God is so much better than us that any sin no matter how slight is deserving of
Infinite punishment. Ughh I'm a thousand times more moral than god if that's his attitude.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 08, 2011, 11:39:22 PM
The question is, how many E4F podcasts are going to be 'well, here's something they can't refute' like they did after the evolution one?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 08, 2011, 11:42:30 PM
My prediction. They will claim the they didn't get a chance to present their stuff.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: jwray on March 12, 2011, 09:43:55 PM
Phelps' son says Fred beats his children and his wife AND forces his children to work selling candy...   That's all illegal.   Also Fred was a major drug addict.

1. hidden cameras
2. ???
3. profit
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 13, 2011, 03:06:19 AM
They're a family of lawyers. I think they'd be able to get out of it.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on March 13, 2011, 03:59:54 AM
also, the Phelps compound in Topeka, KS is heavily fortified with fences and security cameras.  Most unwelcoming church I've ever seen. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church,+Topeka,+KS&aq=0&sll=39.053785,-95.711517&sspn=0.020262,0.045147&ie=UTF8&hq=Westboro+Baptist+Church,&hnear=Topeka,+Shawnee,+Kansas&ll=39.045644,-95.721275&spn=0.002429,0.005643&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.045548,-95.721273&panoid=tM8LI7t8sTojytx-Onotew&cbp=12,232.98,,0,9.96)  Walk around that street view to the back side of the house.  They have a godhatesamerica.com banner hanging on the back of the house, and an american flag on their pole.  What the fuck.

eta:  I've been by there much more recently than that picture was taken.  The place is even more tightly fenced in, the sign has been defaced and you can't see the security cameras in those shots.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: jwray on March 13, 2011, 01:42:10 PM
also, the Phelps compound in Topeka, KS is heavily fortified with fences and security cameras.  Most unwelcoming church I've ever seen. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church,+Topeka,+KS&aq=0&sll=39.053785,-95.711517&sspn=0.020262,0.045147&ie=UTF8&hq=Westboro+Baptist+Church,&hnear=Topeka,+Shawnee,+Kansas&ll=39.045644,-95.721275&spn=0.002429,0.005643&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.045548,-95.721273&panoid=tM8LI7t8sTojytx-Onotew&cbp=12,232.98,,0,9.96)  Walk around that street view to the back side of the house.  They have a godhatesamerica.com banner hanging on the back of the house, and an american flag on their pole.  What the fuck.

eta:  I've been by there much more recently than that picture was taken.  The place is even more tightly fenced in, the sign has been defaced and you can't see the security cameras in those shots.

It's a *desecrated* American flag hanging upside-down.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on March 13, 2011, 01:43:02 PM
also, the Phelps compound in Topeka, KS is heavily fortified with fences and security cameras.  Most unwelcoming church I've ever seen. (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Westboro+Baptist+Church,+Topeka,+KS&aq=0&sll=39.053785,-95.711517&sspn=0.020262,0.045147&ie=UTF8&hq=Westboro+Baptist+Church,&hnear=Topeka,+Shawnee,+Kansas&ll=39.045644,-95.721275&spn=0.002429,0.005643&z=18&layer=c&cbll=39.045548,-95.721273&panoid=tM8LI7t8sTojytx-Onotew&cbp=12,232.98,,0,9.96)  Walk around that street view to the back side of the house.  They have a godhatesamerica.com banner hanging on the back of the house, and an american flag on their pole.  What the fuck.

eta:  I've been by there much more recently than that picture was taken.  The place is even more tightly fenced in, the sign has been defaced and you can't see the security cameras in those shots.

It's a *desecrated* American flag hanging upside-down.

Ah, that makes sense.  It's hard to see in streetview.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Tatyana on March 13, 2011, 01:57:14 PM
What shocked me about the evidence for faith guys is that they thought that in a universe without a mind, things like numbers, colours and premises would exist.

It is no wonder they can continue to believe what they believe.

They announced to their podcast listeners that they won the debate.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 13, 2011, 04:11:32 PM
What shocked me about the evidence for faith guys is that they thought that in a universe without a mind, things like numbers, colours and premises would exist.

It is no wonder they can continue to believe what they believe.
Yeah, I couldn't really follow them on that, either. What part of "abstract ideas don't really exist" don't they understand? It's too bad that no one brought up speech or text - the best abstract idea that doesn't really exist.

Quote
They announced to their podcast listeners that they won the debate.
::) Of course. Never mind that every time that Chuck asked them a question, they were silent for at least a minute in some cases, and just didn't answer the question in other cases. <sarcasm>That is a total win for them.</sarcasm>
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 13, 2011, 05:57:19 PM
They brought up the alphabet. I thought that one was perfect.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 14, 2011, 02:18:09 AM
They brought up the alphabet. I thought that one was perfect.
If they did, I forgot about it. Good on them if they did.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: goodthink on March 14, 2011, 03:23:42 AM
I think what the e4f guys wanted to say, but didn't (chuck mentioned it while laughing), was in a universe without humans, god exists to maintain all concepts so they never disappear, because there is an eternal mind to draw them out of.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 14, 2011, 04:01:25 AM
I think what the e4f guys wanted to say, but didn't (chuck mentioned it while laughing), was in a universe without humans, god exists to maintain all concepts so they never disappear, because there is an eternal mind to draw them out of.
Yeah, that's the only thing I can think of that would explain why they think that things like numbers and shit would still exist. This does not, of course, go towards proving the existence of a god, because a god is part of the premise (god exists in order to maintain all concepts, therefore god exists?).

And even then, even if a god is keeping all abstractions present, why does it have to be the God of modern Christians? Why can't it be, say, Multivac?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ansalem on March 14, 2011, 06:31:17 AM
I just want to be that guy who points out that abstract ideas do, in fact, exist. They just don't exist in the absence of minds.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Desert Fox on March 14, 2011, 07:18:30 AM
It was like listening to a low speed car accident. . . .
You would think the Evidence4God would be ready with some arguments but they don't even know their own bible
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 14, 2011, 08:54:22 AM
It's called thinking they already know everything that needs to be known and not having a clue what a real challenge to their dogma is... Folks like them aren't big on self analysis.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on March 14, 2011, 09:10:15 AM
A great two eps. The E4F guys I'm sure will claim victory because C&L didn't convince them their god does not exist. I love Chuck having to point out to them basically they only believe their evidence because they already believe. A non believer goes "no, the differences in the the gospels match other myth building processes. You haven't shown me why I should treat your myth as special."
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on March 14, 2011, 09:50:04 AM
I love that we have folks like chuck and delahanty who know logic and the bible better than the believers. I bet the apologists are the reason that I've had such a poor opinion of philosophy for so long.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 14, 2011, 11:48:44 AM
I get a chuckle in that if you just heard one of their regular podcasts, you might dismiss these two as a pair of foul mouthed blowhards.  Then they prove that they have a very good idea of what they talk about... and are foul mouthed about it.  ;D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 14, 2011, 04:41:16 PM
I just want to be that guy who points out that abstract ideas do, in fact, exist. They just don't exist in the absence of minds.
I think that everyone who's listened to the debate knows this, which is why no one has actually had to bring it up. I say this because this is pretty much what Chuck said to the E4F guys. Several times. With no effect.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on March 17, 2011, 02:12:20 AM
Oh lord, the latest 'episode' is a fan made 'restrospective' of the first 99 episodes.   ;D :laugh: ;D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on March 17, 2011, 05:08:18 AM
Oh lord, the latest 'episode' is a fan made 'restrospective' of the first 99 episodes.   ;D :laugh: ;D
Oh. Shit. That's going to be awesome.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: James on March 31, 2011, 10:09:45 AM
It was like listening to a low speed car accident. . . .
You would think the Evidence4God would be ready with some arguments but they don't even know their own bible
True.  Considering in the name of their podcast is the word  "evidence" and they consider the bible to be full of evidence for their god, you would think they would have a better working knowledge.  They even close out their podcasts with the ridiculous line- "Remember the best reason for believing in christianity is because its true." wtf?
                                                                                                                                                                                           This "debate" was the most one-sided affair that I have ever listened to, one of the highlights is when they said to 'let Leighton talk' and he opened up a can of whoop-ass on them! Chuck and Leighton may like to joke around a lot and come off as crude, especially Leighton, but they know their stuff and are very intelligent.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on March 31, 2011, 01:56:54 PM
Their new podcast is not nearly as good, IMHO.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 01, 2011, 04:13:02 AM
Their new podcast is not nearly as good, IMHO.
The new episode or an entirely new podcast? Oh, right, they were doing some spin-off thing, weren't they? Spin-offs are never as good as the original. And if they are, they're remembered as the original.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on April 01, 2011, 11:24:29 AM
Their new podcast is not nearly as good, IMHO.
The new episode or an entirely new podcast? Oh, right, they were doing some spin-off thing, weren't they? Spin-offs are never as good as the original. And if they are, they're remembered as the original.

True that. But that doesn't mean the spin off has to be bad, just not as strong as the original. One can always hope for Gomer Pyle USMC. I think instead we are getting Mayberry RFD. Hope for Xena, but get Young Hercules?  Would like Next Gen, but get Enterprise?

Heh that's kind fun. 
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on April 01, 2011, 03:16:23 PM
As much as I like the extra podcasts that the lady host has put together, I really did not find the spinoff all that entertaining.  I had to stop half way through.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Tatyana on April 01, 2011, 04:12:25 PM
The Second Law is the spin off, and it was the first podcast they had done.

I don't think the first episode of Irreligiosophy was fantastic either.

I think there is promise.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders on April 01, 2011, 04:21:19 PM
They need to find their own voice and stop trying to channel Chuck and Leighton (even if they try subconsciously). Then it can be good.

P.S. Listen to the first SGU Episode...
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 01, 2011, 08:24:17 PM
Yeah, I'll give the spin-off a few episodes before making judgments. I'll have to listen to it first, at any rate.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on April 16, 2011, 10:22:00 PM
Just getting to the end of #102, an interview with David Silverman.  Very enjoyable.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 17, 2011, 05:43:16 AM


Has anyone listened to episode #100 (Questions from the Hoi Polloi)?

I have to say, I think this is one of the best episodes of the show I've ever listened to (well, one segment of it)   About 30min into the podcast, Chuck takes on the question: "you're obviously atheist and your wife is Mormon; how do you make it work?".....

and the way Chuck answers it and talks about his wife and her family reveals a side of him that I've never seen (heard?) before.  Really interesting.   The mocking and derision that he and Leighton are 'known' for (although completely valid and justifiable) gets a little 'one note' for me sometimes, but 'Chuck's family segment' in this episode features some really mature/thoughtful discourse on having long-term, loving relationships with people whose beliefs you don't respect.

worth a listen.

Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Dionysus on April 17, 2011, 09:38:16 AM
Yeah, he answered that question briefly in a much earlier podcast, but it's nice to hear him touch on it again.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 17, 2011, 11:52:21 AM
Yeah, he answered that question briefly in a much earlier podcast, but it's nice to hear him touch on it again.


Ah, I must have missed that (I listen to a lot of the shows, but not all, so this is the first time I've heard him address the issue)


By the way, have you given up Pepsi or something Dionysus?  ;)


Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Dionysus on April 17, 2011, 02:13:12 PM
Heh, just wanted something new. ;)  And yeah, he mentioned it before, but it's a topic he doesn't really care to talk about all that much. It's understandable since I'm sure he doesn't want to jeopardize his marriage over bad blood caused by the podcast.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 17, 2011, 02:44:13 PM
Heh, just wanted something new. ;)  And yeah, he mentioned it before, but it's a topic he doesn't really care to talk about all that much. It's understandable since I'm sure he doesn't want to jeopardize his marriage over bad blood caused by the podcast.


Yeah, I guess that's what so suprised me about his unusual candor in this episode!  I mean, we're used to Leighton uh, 'talking' about his family........anyway, given the praise he expressed for his wife and her family (and the graciousness with which he expressed it), I can't imagine his openness here causing any bad blood :)

I think most women would feel incredibly honoured to have their spouse tell the world that she is "literally, the best person I've ever known".


Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 18, 2011, 02:18:19 AM
I think Chuck's also mentioned that it's nobody's business what happens in his family life. Leighton clearly doesn't care about his family's privacy, but Chuck does.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 18, 2011, 08:49:47 AM
I have to say, I was a little gobsmacked by how different Leighton looks compared to the image I got in my head from his voice!

(he's the one on the right)




(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3Pnz1CKxqso/S-K-SGUk3sI/AAAAAAAAACs/NULspU3STck/s1600/la2.jpg)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on April 18, 2011, 06:40:00 PM
Yeah, makes his man whore stories much more believable.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 18, 2011, 10:42:57 PM
Yeah, makes his man whore stories much more believable.
Seriously. I mean, I figured there was some slight exaggeration for comedic effect, but dayum.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on April 18, 2011, 10:45:16 PM
Calm down.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 18, 2011, 10:50:48 PM
Calm down.
So, wait, it's ok for twenty guys to comment about an attractive girl who's just joined the forum... but I express surprise that a podcast host is more attractive than I expected... and I should calm down? Really?

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN. MY LIBIDO IS BURNING FOR YOU LEIGHTON ALLRED. BURNING WITH A FIERY FIRE IN MY BOSOM.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on April 18, 2011, 10:54:22 PM
Calm down.
So, wait, it's ok for twenty guys to comment about an attractive girl who's just joined the forum... but I express surprise that a podcast host is more attractive than I expected... and I should calm down? Really?

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN. MY LIBIDO IS BURNING FOR YOU LEIGHTON ALLRED. BURNING WITH A FIERY FIRE IN MY BOSOM.

Wait. Who was this then? 
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 18, 2011, 11:01:41 PM
Calm down.
So, wait, it's ok for twenty guys to comment about an attractive girl who's just joined the forum... but I express surprise that a podcast host is more attractive than I expected... and I should calm down? Really?

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN. MY LIBIDO IS BURNING FOR YOU LEIGHTON ALLRED. BURNING WITH A FIERY FIRE IN MY BOSOM.

Wait. Who was this then?
Every pretty girl who has ever joined this forum. Ever. Just skim the "what do we look like" thread.

I'm not saying that it bothers me - I'm saying that it bothers me that I can't express my BURNING PASSION FOR ATHEIST PODCASTERS.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 18, 2011, 11:19:21 PM


I'm truly experiencing major cognitive dissonance as a result of this.......I'm going to need to see a video of that voice coming out of that body before this will compute.

I pictured him as kind of doughy 45yr old with thinning hair and spider veins in his cheeks. (kinda)


Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 18, 2011, 11:24:31 PM


I'm truly experiencing major cognitive dissonance as a result of this.......I'm going to need to see a video of that voice coming out of that body before this will compute.

I pictured him as kind of doughy 45yr old with thinning hair and spider veins in his cheeks. (kinda)
I originally thought Leighton was in his late 30s, but iirc he's nearer to my age. Chuck is the old man of the podcast and he's in his mid 30s, isn't he? or late 30s. I forget.

But, yes, more evidence is required!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 19, 2011, 12:41:26 AM

But, yes, more evidence is required!


(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3Pnz1CKxqso/S-K-Kx88bkI/AAAAAAAAACk/ukEs0NpVWIw/s1600/la1.jpg)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 19, 2011, 12:45:25 AM

jello wrestling :)


(http://a1.l3-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/128/73525f7d10ad4c4f9203dc89b450e6b3/l.jpg)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 19, 2011, 12:57:25 AM

oh my god! I got those first two pics of Leighton from a page featuring an interview with him, and I just discovered that the person doing the interviewing is/was our very own member mindme! :)

http://www.skepreview.com/2010/05/interview-with-leighton-allred-of.html (http://www.skepreview.com/2010/05/interview-with-leighton-allred-of.html)

and here's mindme's post about it on this forum:

http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,27881.0.html (http://sguforums.com/index.php/topic,27881.0.html)


(I obviously missed his post when he first posted it! :)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders on April 21, 2011, 07:04:04 AM
Calm down.
So, wait, it's ok for twenty guys to comment about an attractive girl who's just joined the forum... but I express surprise that a podcast host is more attractive than I expected... and I should calm down? Really?

I WILL NOT CALM DOWN. MY LIBIDO IS BURNING FOR YOU LEIGHTON ALLRED. BURNING WITH A FIERY FIRE IN MY BOSOM.

You can always e-mail the podcast. I'm sure they'd be happy to read your love e-mail and then make fun of it...  ;)

(Actually, I don't think Leighton would allow that, even if Chuck wanted to.)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: beaglebot on April 21, 2011, 04:50:26 PM


Has anyone listened to episode #100 (Questions from the Hoi Polloi)?

I have to say, I think this is one of the best episodes of the show I've ever listened to (well, one segment of it)   About 30min into the podcast, Chuck takes on the question: "you're obviously atheist and your wife is Mormon; how do you make it work?".....

and the way Chuck answers it and talks about his wife and her family reveals a side of him that I've never seen (heard?) before.  Really interesting.   The mocking and derision that he and Leighton are 'known' for (although completely valid and justifiable) gets a little 'one note' for me sometimes, but 'Chuck's family segment' in this episode features some really mature/thoughtful discourse on having long-term, loving relationships with people whose beliefs you don't respect.

worth a listen.

I'm glad you posted that. I very much agree with it, the story was good to hear, it was nice background and it gave depth. It's not that I mind the language, mocking or derision, it just seems like it got more one note after they quit doing ANN. It was almost like that was an outlet for it and it let the rest of the show be that much better.

I still listen every week (well, I guess fortnight now) but it's gone from being one of the first shows I listen when I see it has hit the iPod to the middle of the pack. Still well worth a listen.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 21, 2011, 08:13:01 PM
Yeah, I wish they'd still do ANN. :'( Maybe they can farm that out to the spin-off podcast.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Dionysus on April 21, 2011, 08:52:18 PM
They do the skunk dicks and it takes up half the podcast, which makes me laugh even more. I think they had a good point about the whole "reading news stories and making snarky/pithy comments about it and laugh to yourself" thing. The skunk dick segment allows them to really hammer specific topics without sounding so pretentious.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 21, 2011, 08:56:20 PM
They do the skunk dicks and it takes up half the podcast, which makes me laugh even more. I think they had a good point about the whole "reading news stories and making snarky/pithy comments about it and laugh to yourself" thing. The skunk dick segment allows them to really hammer specific topics without sounding so pretentious.
I love Skunk Dick of the Week.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AxeGrrl on April 22, 2011, 02:10:14 AM
It's not that I mind the language, mocking or derision, it just seems like it got more one note after they quit doing ANN.


Please tell me that 'ANN' isn't a girl they both know.

*blank look*
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on April 22, 2011, 03:10:31 AM
It's not that I mind the language, mocking or derision, it just seems like it got more one note after they quit doing ANN.


Please tell me that 'ANN' isn't a girl they both know.

*blank look*
:roflolmao:
Atheist News Network.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders on April 23, 2011, 10:33:46 AM
Anyone else think they need to be on the SGU?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Dionysus on April 23, 2011, 06:19:26 PM
The SGU doesn't really talk about religion and the Irreligiosophy guys don't really talk about skepticism. So, my initial answer is no. One place that the two subjects do overlap is ghosts and hauntings, which Chuck and Leighton have covered a few times. Perhaps they could talk about that stuff.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders on April 25, 2011, 07:36:45 AM
The SGU doesn't really talk about religion and the Irreligiosophy guys don't really talk about skepticism. So, my initial answer is no. One place that the two subjects do overlap is ghosts and hauntings, which Chuck and Leighton have covered a few times. Perhaps they could talk about that stuff.

True... faith healing would be another natural topic.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on April 25, 2011, 09:52:22 AM
One thing I love about Leighton is how clueless he is/was about skepticism and the skeptical community. I think he was surprised his little podcast found such a rapid (and at times fervent) audience with skeptics. Who are these people? Where did they all come from? What do they want from me?

I agree with the poster above that Ir and SGU cover some fairly non-overlapping magisteria.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders on April 25, 2011, 03:27:05 PM
They've also taken on What the Bleep... please... would be awesome...
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 04, 2011, 06:02:16 PM
I love Morman crazy.

Oh and Kurt Hastings revealed as the true identity of MMP!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on May 05, 2011, 07:48:49 PM
I love Morman crazy.

Oh and Kurt Hastings revealed as the true identity of MMP!
What? Seriously?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 05, 2011, 08:43:08 PM
I love Morman crazy.

Oh and Kurt Hastings revealed as the true identity of MMP!
What? Seriously?

You haven't listened to the latest episode? No not really.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on May 05, 2011, 09:01:40 PM
I love Morman crazy.

Oh and Kurt Hastings revealed as the true identity of MMP!
What? Seriously?

You haven't listened to the latest episode? No not really.
I haven't. I haven't been keeping up with my podcasts in the last month or so.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 26, 2011, 09:47:23 PM
More Mormon Crazy!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Karyn on May 27, 2011, 12:51:39 AM
Jesus fucking hell, finally!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on May 27, 2011, 01:58:17 AM
Jesus fucking hell, finally!
That's actually why the episodes were late - they were too busy fucking Jesus in Hell after the Rapture.

Funnily enough, I haven't been keeping up with my podcasts over the last two months or so, and today was the first time in a while that I updated my irreligiosophy feed. I picked a good time to do so.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 27, 2011, 08:40:12 AM
I love that song! Wonder if it's on iTunes , anybody know what it's called?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on May 28, 2011, 02:53:24 PM
I love that song! Wonder if it's on iTunes , anybody know what it's called?
O_O The Mormon song in the intro? You're weird.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 28, 2011, 03:57:46 PM
I love that song! Wonder if it's on iTunes , anybody know what it's called?
O_O The Mormon song in the intro? You're weird.

.....living righteously..
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on May 28, 2011, 03:58:56 PM
I love that song! Wonder if it's on iTunes , anybody know what it's called?
O_O The Mormon song in the intro? You're weird.

.....living righteously..
Oh, god, that song.

You're even weirder than I thought.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on May 28, 2011, 04:00:51 PM
I love that song! Wonder if it's on iTunes , anybody know what it's called?
O_O The Mormon song in the intro? You're weird.

.....living righteously..
Oh, god, that song.

You're even weirder than I thought.

I see it sung by those born in Brazil Hitler clones with glowing eyes.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Jeffrey Goines on June 19, 2011, 09:45:03 AM
Love the show and had this made....unfortunately it was on a cheap-ass vinyl-like material that stretched and warped when I tried to slap it on.

(http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/9585/img1687v.jpg)



Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on June 19, 2011, 03:09:01 PM
I just finished listening to all of their podcasts. Wow. At first I thought they were a little to snarky but the two of them grew on me. One complaint is when they do they do a debate it is more like a brawl sometimes. I would like to hear them debate someone who is really good and not like those two knuckleheads at EFF . Charlie and co. are very knowledgeable. I wish I knew half of what they knew.
I think one of my favorite episode was the one on "Rudolf the Red Nose Reindeer" I laughedmy ass off on that one.
All in all it is a great podcast and now that I am caught up I really look forward to the next show.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on June 19, 2011, 06:30:00 PM
I would not want them to have a debate like all the other podcasts that exist out there. You can find unbrawl-like debates scattered throughout the internet - Charlie and Leighton do not need to do something like that. I'd like them less if they did something like that, I think.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on June 19, 2011, 07:14:36 PM
Ya I know what you mean Panda I like their style too. I just would like to see Charlie do a regular debate because he is so knowledgeable and I think he would do well.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on June 19, 2011, 07:20:43 PM
That's an interesting point, but it's not something I'd want to listen to. Just a personal preference of mine, though. And I think the guys have said before that they wouldn't want to do something like that because it legitimizes the other guys in a roundabout sort of way, and they're of the opinion that the beliefs of the religious should be mocked and scorned, not legitimized. Smart people believe stupid things, and stupid things should be mocked. I agree with this, and would be slightly put off if they did something that would compromise their stance on the show.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on June 19, 2011, 08:48:16 PM
Science has had that debate for a long time. (To debate or not to debate.) I just don't think it works not to debate. It is the best way to ridicule the other side. If you don't debate you ignore the people that really haven't made up their minds yet(like the Evolution/vaccine debate).  Now not everyone should debate. It takes a certain skill to pull it off and win. I think Charlie has that skill to pull it off and win. If they have said that they didn't want to debate then ok but if they change their mind we can always give them another skunkdick award  ;)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull on June 19, 2011, 11:37:53 PM
I just got a chuckle at the whole "okay, we debated them and we think we did well, but aren't going to harp on things.  Oh?  They said What?  Oh, it's ON!" reaction to E4F's post debate shenanigans.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on June 20, 2011, 12:30:57 AM
I just got a chuckle at the whole "okay, we debated them and we think we did well, but aren't going to harp on things.  Oh?  They said What?  Oh, it's ON!" reaction to E4F's post debate shenanigans.
Those were pretty awesome episodes. :D
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on June 20, 2011, 10:20:17 AM
I just got a chuckle at the whole "okay, we debated them and we think we did well, but aren't going to harp on things.  Oh?  They said What?  Oh, it's ON!" reaction to E4F's post debate shenanigans.
Those were pretty awesome episodes. :D

They really did rip them a new one.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Movius on November 08, 2011, 06:03:20 AM
Good night sweet prince ;_;
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on November 08, 2011, 07:20:41 AM
Is it done?


EDIT: Yeah, its done.

http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/)

How sad - seems like it may not have ended well either.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on November 08, 2011, 08:33:25 AM
It's a shame. I hope they can repair their friendship. I don't care if they ever do the podcast again. They're two great guys and boyhood friends. Yeah, going into business with your best friend can have consequences. Dr. Chuck is a bit like Dr. Novella. You wonder where he gets the time. He's got a medical practice, journal research to keep up with, CME hours, a family, etc. Then he has to navigate the differences in religion with his wife. And he has to do extensive research for a podcast.

Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Chew on November 08, 2011, 09:12:24 AM
What business did they start?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on November 08, 2011, 09:18:48 AM
Just listened to the final episode.  Too Much Joy made me all misty eyed.  So appropriate for ending that podcast, irreverent, kinda nasty, very silly, and very poignant.  Well done.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on November 08, 2011, 10:27:55 AM
What business did they start?

Nigel St. Whitehall said to me it was some kind of halloween frightmare experience or something.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 08, 2011, 05:23:30 PM
This wasn't totally unexpected. I'm just sad that it seems to have ended badly.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 10, 2011, 03:43:51 PM
I had just started to listen to this. I killed it! Sorry guys. I thought the ocdasional hokophobia was off--putting, but otherwise it was exactly the kind of thing I like in a podcast.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 10, 2011, 06:53:00 PM
ocdasional hokophobia
What.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AQB24712 on November 10, 2011, 08:06:34 PM
Lord help me, panda, I think I understood that, although I like "hokophobia."  Fear of Virginia Tech, perhaps.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 10, 2011, 08:12:16 PM
Bahahaha! That's called "typing with a tablet". I meant "homophobia". Of COURSE.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 10, 2011, 08:56:36 PM
Bahahaha! That's called "typing with a tablet". I meant "homophobia". Of COURSE.
I'm fairly certain that the homophobia is just as real as the misogyny on the show, but I know what you mean. Sometimes it gets a little old. On the other hand, they mock everyone and everything, so it's not like they have a special hatred of any one group. :P
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 11, 2011, 06:31:34 PM
Its a moot point now but in my mind there's a difference between being crass and going out of your way to insult someone by calling them gay. I'm sure Leighton would counter that the guys he gave a hard time with that, he only used the gay stuff because he knew it would hurt more, but to me that's the opposite of an excuse.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 12, 2011, 04:41:13 PM
Its a moot point now but in my mind there's a difference between being crass and going out of your way to insult someone by calling them gay. I'm sure Leighton would counter that the guys he gave a hard time with that, he only used the gay stuff because he knew it would hurt more, but to me that's the opposite of an excuse.
I'm not saying that the use of "gay" as an insult doesn't feed the homophobia machine, I just wouldn't call it homophobia. Especially not since I know that they do support gay rights.

But now we're talking semantics, and that bores me. Bores me gay.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 12, 2011, 06:59:18 PM
Maybe, but this is my axe to grind: if you insult someone by inferring that they're gay, you're lending credence to the notion that calling someone gay is an insult. Even if you're only using because it's an insult to *them* and not to you. I really, really get the motivation: you'd like to stick the knife in that person as deeply as they've offended other people with their own ignorance. But you just can't do this, I don't think (and yes, I realize that I'm not consistent on that point in my own dealings).
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 12, 2011, 07:01:50 PM
Agreed!

And I know what they are going to say, but why would you let the bigots think youre on their side?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Movius on November 13, 2011, 04:42:33 PM
They pretended to love those gay penguins because they are closet homophobes. Chuck even has a female wife. Disgraceful
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 13, 2011, 08:49:48 PM
Gay Penguins at Toronto Zoo Being Split Up (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8xbIZmf7po#)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 13, 2011, 09:25:09 PM
They pretended to love those gay penguins because they are closet homophobes. Chuck even has a female wife. Disgraceful
I'll take "missing the point" for $400, Alex!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 14, 2011, 07:44:34 PM
Maybe, but this is my axe to grind: if you insult someone by inferring that they're gay, you're lending credence to the notion that calling someone gay is an insult. Even if you're only using because it's an insult to *them* and not to you. I really, really get the motivation: you'd like to stick the knife in that person as deeply as they've offended other people with their own ignorance. But you just can't do this, I don't think (and yes, I realize that I'm not consistent on that point in my own dealings).
I'm not defending their use of the word gay as an insult, I'm just pointing out that although there is smoke, fire is lacking. That's why I said "I'm not saying that the use of "gay" as an insult doesn't feed the homophobia machine, I just wouldn't call it homophobia". In other words, "Using 'gay' as an insult feeds the homophobia machine, but it doesn't mean that Chuck and Leighton are homophobes. Just assholes."

They pretended to love those gay penguins because they are closet homophobes. Chuck even has a female wife. Disgraceful
....Wut? I mean, I was following you until the second sentence. But I don't get what Chuck's wife has to do with Chuck's homophobia or lack thereof. Lots of homophobes have female wives. Male wives are definitely frowned upon in homophobe circles.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on November 14, 2011, 08:19:09 PM
I've always called someone gay meaning lame. Like the south park episode. I've always used it in that context since I was in Jr. High. That should date me.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 14, 2011, 08:25:45 PM
I've always called someone gay meaning lame. Like the south park episode. I've always used it in that context since I was in Jr. High. That should date me.
But you see why someone who is gay might take offense at that, right? That associating gay with lameness isn't exactly gay-friendly? And how it could reinforce anti-gay sentiment?

To be completely honest, I use 'gay' as an insult too often for my own comfort. It's just something that my brain has soaked up from the culture. That should be an indication of how insidious things like this are - that I, someone who is conscious of associations like this, will use 'gay' as an insult is confusing, and slightly wrong. I'm working on it, though. If only there were a word that meant "weak; inadequate; unsatisfactory; clumsy; out of touch with modern fads or trends; unsophisticated." IF ONLY LAME MEANT LAME.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on November 14, 2011, 08:29:54 PM
But lame doesn't mean that.  It means that you have trouble walking.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 14, 2011, 08:37:39 PM
Language evolves. We need a new word for gay. Fabulous?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 14, 2011, 08:50:17 PM
We should bring back the term "to Jew". That should probably take some of the onus off of the "gay" thing.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on November 14, 2011, 08:50:25 PM
I have completely replaced my derivative use of the word gay with dick neck when used as a noun and willfully ignorant as an adjective.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 14, 2011, 08:51:28 PM
I have to admit that I find myself using "retarded" in its place. Probably not the best usage, but those goofy bastards love me!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 14, 2011, 08:51:59 PM
We should bring back the term "to Jew". That should probably take some of the onus off of the "gay" thing.

Dude that's common parlance in alabama.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AQB24712 on November 14, 2011, 08:59:06 PM
We should bring back the term "to Jew". That should probably take some of the onus off of the "gay" thing.

Dude that's common parlance in alabama.

 >:( >:( >:(
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 14, 2011, 09:00:54 PM
We should bring back the term "to Jew". That should probably take some of the onus off of the "gay" thing.

Dude that's common parlance in alabama.

 >:( >:( >:(

Not all the stories about southern ignorance aren't true.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AQB24712 on November 14, 2011, 09:04:34 PM
Yeah, I know.  But everybody's got their thing.  Johnny reacts to "gay," my other-forum friend Zorro reacts to "retarded," I react to "Jew."
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: GodSlayer on November 14, 2011, 09:17:52 PM
I had just started to listen to this. I killed it! Sorry guys. I thought the ocdasional hokophobia was off--putting, but otherwise it was exactly the kind of thing I like in a podcast.

despite the word 'ocdasional' in your sentence, I still googled "hokophobia"  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/uncreative101/emoticons/blush.gif)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: GodSlayer on November 14, 2011, 09:20:01 PM
I'm not saying that the use of "gay" as an insult doesn't feed the homophobia machine, I just wouldn't call it homophobia.

amen. if I call someone a dick, it doesn't mean I'm afraid of or intolerant of men or penises. If I was gay, I'd be annoyed by people trying to make out that gays were pussies and wanted--needed--to be treated as though special. May as well complain 'oh, you can't say someone is a pussy, that would offend my cat--they're a very proud species, and they don't deserve the ridicule your felinophobia gives them'.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AQB24712 on November 14, 2011, 09:20:35 PM
I had just started to listen to this. I killed it! Sorry guys. I thought the ocdasional hokophobia was off--putting, but otherwise it was exactly the kind of thing I like in a podcast.

despite the word 'ocdasional' in your sentence, I still googled "hokophobia"  (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/uncreative101/emoticons/blush.gif)

Fear of original programming on Lifetime: Television for Women.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 15, 2011, 12:49:24 AM
I'll be honest: GodSlayer agreeing with me confuses and vaguely terrifies me. :P
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: GodSlayer on November 15, 2011, 12:53:30 AM
I'll be honest: GodSlayer agreeing with me confuses and vaguely terrifies me. :P

come to the dark side! I need company. (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v200/uncreative101/emoticons/wub.gif)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on November 15, 2011, 09:09:51 AM
New ep. An interview with Dan Barker. Probably something they had in the can for a while.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Movius on November 15, 2011, 09:25:16 AM
They pretended to love those gay penguins because they are closet homophobes. Chuck even has a female wife. Disgraceful
....Wut? I mean, I was following you until the second sentence. But I don't get what Chuck's wife has to do with Chuck's homophobia or lack thereof. Lots of homophobes have female wives. Male wives are definitely frowned upon in homophobe circles.
Sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet it seems.

My statement was about as absurd as referring to Irreligiosophy as homophobic. Infantile, Immature, offensive to all standards of good taste, sure. Homophobic, no.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 15, 2011, 09:42:15 AM
And my comments about it speak for themselves. I don't think they're homophobic but they have made homophobic remarks.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on November 15, 2011, 01:31:43 PM

But you see why someone who is gay might take offense at that, right? That associating gay with lameness isn't exactly gay-friendly? And how it could reinforce anti-gay sentiment?
Definitely I can see your point and agree with you on that one Panda, like someone posted language does evolve and it does take time for people to change their usage of words. I know I don't use it as much as I have in the past. I still should not use it at all.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 16, 2011, 04:04:08 PM
And my comments about it speak for themselves. I don't think they're homophobic but they have made homophobic remarks.
I AM GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG.

They pretended to love those gay penguins because they are closet homophobes. Chuck even has a female wife. Disgraceful
....Wut? I mean, I was following you until the second sentence. But I don't get what Chuck's wife has to do with Chuck's homophobia or lack thereof. Lots of homophobes have female wives. Male wives are definitely frowned upon in homophobe circles.
Sarcasm doesn't carry well over the internet it seems.

My statement was about as absurd as referring to Irreligiosophy as homophobic. Infantile, Immature, offensive to all standards of good taste, sure. Homophobic, no.
Sarcasm breaks down if it doesn't make sense. :P And what you were trying was satire, I think.

I AM GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: GodSlayer on November 16, 2011, 06:08:01 PM
And my comments about it speak for themselves. I don't think they're homophobic but they have made homophobic remarks.
I AM GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG.

oh, this is only the internet.

phew.

for a moment there, I thought he could vote.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 16, 2011, 07:30:56 PM
And my comments about it speak for themselves. I don't think they're homophobic but they have made homophobic remarks.
I AM GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS THE INTERNET AND YOU ARE WRONG.

oh, this is only the internet.

phew.

for a moment there, I thought he could vote.
Johnny's an ex-convict, of course he can't vote.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 16, 2011, 07:33:34 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 16, 2011, 07:43:09 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(
So... when you threatened to "pop a cap"... what was that a euphemism for? ???
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: PANTS! on November 16, 2011, 07:43:23 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(

So then, what the hell is the pampitous of love?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: GodSlayer on November 16, 2011, 08:03:27 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(

So then, what the hell is the pampitous of love?

for that matter, what is love?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on November 16, 2011, 08:04:16 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(

So then, what the hell is the pampitous of love?
/me ices PANTS!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on November 16, 2011, 08:13:24 PM
Just listened to the Dan Barker interview, and I'm really going to miss this show. I hope Chuck decides to revisit it soon.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on November 16, 2011, 09:14:21 PM
When I said I was a gangster of love, that is not what I meant!  >:(

So then, what the hell is the pampitous of love?

for that matter, what is love?
I really love your peaches want to shake your tree?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: AQB24712 on November 16, 2011, 09:14:57 PM
I hate everyone in this thread who has contributed to my earworm.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on November 16, 2011, 09:15:39 PM
Just listened to the Dan Barker interview, and I'm really going to miss this show. I hope Chuck decides to revisit it soon.
I am hoping that it will be a good interview. Ya me too  :'(
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on November 16, 2011, 09:25:32 PM
Just listened to the Dan Barker interview, and I'm really going to miss this show. I hope Chuck decides to revisit it soon.
I am hoping that it will be a good interview. Ya me too  :'(
It's a great interview. *wink wink* *nudge nudge* Say no more. Dan Barker was a great guest.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu on November 16, 2011, 09:51:02 PM
Just listened to the Dan Barker interview, and I'm really going to miss this show. I hope Chuck decides to revisit it soon.
I am hoping that it will be a good interview. Ya me too  :'(
It's a great interview. *wink wink* *nudge nudge* Say no more. Dan Barker was a great guest.
They both know the subject matter.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 06, 2012, 03:50:04 PM
So, while looking for a link to a couple of episodes, I happened to read the last few posts on the irreligiosophy blog.
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/ (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/)

Apparently, Chuck is pairing up with some dude to start a new podcast. I've already signed up for the newsletter. Will you?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on February 06, 2012, 03:52:05 PM
I can't wait. Will it be irrelegesophy?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 06, 2012, 03:55:35 PM
I can't wait. Will it be irrelegesophy?
Unapologetics, according to the site.

I'm glad that Chuck decided on a new name: irreligiosophy was a unique beast, and with Chuck and Leighton's falling out, it would be very weird for Chuck to come back with a new co-host.
Also, I think it's about time I relistened to Irreligiosophy.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on February 06, 2012, 03:59:14 PM
I hope he elliminates everything I disliked and doubles down on all the things I loved!
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Dionysus on February 06, 2012, 10:10:30 PM
Leighton will be missed. I enjoyed his irreverence (read: total disregard for common decency) and just generally being a dick. Hopefully the new cohost won't be a total bore.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme on February 07, 2012, 09:02:03 AM
Leighton will be missed. I enjoyed his irreverence (read: total disregard for common decency) and just generally being a dick. Hopefully the new cohost won't be a total bore.

Agreed. Leighton gave voice to the anger and frustration we do feel at the god hates fags set. He gave voice to people who do have a family of hardcore believers and didn't shy away from how hard it was to reconcile his love for his family with their inability to just accept his view.

Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 08, 2012, 02:12:47 AM
Leighton will be missed. I enjoyed his irreverence (read: total disregard for common decency) and just generally being a dick. Hopefully the new cohost won't be a total bore.

Agreed. Leighton gave voice to the anger and frustration we do feel at the god hates fags set. He gave voice to people who do have a family of hardcore believers and didn't shy away from how hard it was to reconcile his love for his family with their inability to just accept his view.
I'm listening to the Comicbook Scare ep atm--in the skunk dick of the week segment, Leighton gets super pissed about the anti-abortion legislation that OK passed requiring women to get an ultrasound and hear a description of the fetus before they could abort the fetus. I didn't remember him being so righteously pissed when I first listened to it.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick on February 08, 2012, 02:23:21 AM
Well, I for one agree with that legislation! Also, I think you should have to look a puppy in the eyes before you have a tumor removed. That tumor is made of life, and life is sacred.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 08, 2012, 02:31:09 AM
Well, I for one agree with that legislation! Also, I think you should have to look a puppy in the eyes before you have a tumor removed. That tumor is made of life, and life is sacred.
Every time I take a shower, I genocide trillions of bacteria. OH THE HUMANITY.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Gerbig on February 08, 2012, 02:46:56 AM
Too bad they are gone =/, their debate with the evidence for faith was epic.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 08, 2012, 02:48:28 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Gerbig on February 08, 2012, 02:51:16 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 08, 2012, 03:07:25 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
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Gerbig on February 08, 2012, 03:09:01 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Gerbig 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?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium 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=1024)
http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1044 (http://www.irreligiosophy.com/?p=1044)
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Ravenhull 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...
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: mindme 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).
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Anders 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?
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: seaotter on February 10, 2012, 10:15:45 AM
The reasonable doubts guys destroyed some group over free will. It really got embarrassing.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: xenu 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Movius 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: Johnny Slick 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium on February 10, 2012, 01:57:49 PM
Wait, Mrs. Roper is a religious nut?
She's a Phelps--it's genetic.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on February 10, 2012, 08:28:46 PM
Hey!!!  :P
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: pandamonium 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.
Title: Re: irreligiosophy
Post by: craig on February 10, 2012, 10:02:28 PM
No!  Although he was a fascinating man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelps_Phelps (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phelps_Phelps)

I prefer for people to compare me to Michael Phelps :) but the fact is that I am probably not related to any other Phelps (especially the batshit crazy ones) outside of my extended family due to various rumors about my grandfathers parentage.