Frank Turek
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
28-05-2016, 03:52 PM
Frank Turek
I continually watch religious debates. I just can't get enough. I even go over old one's that I've watched before to ether think up my own responses to questions presented or try to remember really good responses to questions presented.

A popular Christian Apologist that pops up quiet often not only in debates but in religious conversations if Frank Turek.

What I find from watching his debates is how scripted it is. All his debates follow the same fore mate.

"I just want everyone to know that all the process from my books tonight will go to feeding needy children... Mine!"

It was funny the first time. But not when his kids are graduating from college.

"God's law's are written on our hearts."

[Image: giphy.gif]

Nope. Just blood and veins.

"But Sensei it's a Metaphor."

Possibly true. But then he would have to admit it's in our brains and it doesn't sound as poetic if you say "God's laws are all in your mind."

"How much dose morals weigh? How much dose Justice weigh?"

I don't know Frank. What dose red taste like? What dose space sound like?

And that bring me to why I wanted to start a thread discussion about this guy. Most of his debates he always comes back to Morals.

"Where do we get out Morals from? If it's just chemicals that we can do anything we want why should it matter? God gives us our morals."

I enjoyed his debate with Hitchens because Hitchens didn't take any of his shit. The aggravation of Turek was just to precious.

Turek "You didn't answer my question!"
Hitchens "I believe I did."

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Commonsensei's post
28-05-2016, 05:15 PM
RE: Frank Turek
I've also watched him debate Hitchens.

IIRC, he focused on the fine-tuning argument, first cause and morals.

He was less offensive than some of the others. For example, Dinesh D'souza is really bad.

I love the debates too. You can learn a great deal about the topic, even from the "wrong" side.

One thing I always noticed was that instead of refuting the atheist points, they mostly just try to point out why the points don't matter or aren't relevant.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
28-05-2016, 09:27 PM
RE: Frank Turek
(28-05-2016 05:15 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  I've also watched him debate Hitchens.

IIRC, he focused on the fine-tuning argument, first cause and morals.

He was less offensive than some of the others. For example, Dinesh D'souza is really bad.

I love the debates too. You can learn a great deal about the topic, even from the "wrong" side.

One thing I always noticed was that instead of refuting the atheist points, they mostly just try to point out why the points don't matter or aren't relevant.

I agree that Dinesh is truly awful, he's on the same level as Ray Comfort for me which is not a good thing. I do think Frank isn't too bad, he has made me think and he's a good speaker but fact is even when he tries to bring up science any and all of his evidence could be skewed and used to prove any creator God is real, there is still no reason to believe any such being loves use or judges us.

Then there is the question of morality, there are natural causes and reasons for us to be moral and for animals to feel empathy but we're not even that moral. Just a cursory glance at human history is troubling enough then you start to look at what is going on right now and it's upsetting how humans seem to find new ways to hurt each other and even animals and our planet, there is still no reason to believe a God delusion makes anyone a better person, until that can be proven we still have the natural theory. Either way it's fun to watch any debate on religion and I love thinking "I would know what to say to this and what to ask in followup." Maybe one day I could be in a real debate but for now I can keep arguing with the theists I bump into online, that's always fun.

[Image: sagansig_zps6vhbql6m.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like SitaSky's post
29-05-2016, 08:05 PM
RE: Frank Turek
(28-05-2016 09:27 PM)SitaSky Wrote:  Then there is the question of morality, there are natural causes and reasons for us to be moral and for animals to feel empathy but we're not even that moral.
If you consider that we are social animals and hence we tend to flock together, we naturally form some rules to enable cohabitation. Don't kill each other, seems logical and sensible if you want to live. Allowing killing means that others might try to kill you. Or even being the aggressor means that the "victim" might defend themself and kill you in the process.

So there you have it, a version of defining "allowable behaviour" without it being written in our heart or having a godly being tell us to behave this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2016, 08:07 PM (This post was last modified: 29-05-2016 08:11 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Frank Turek
(28-05-2016 03:52 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I continually watch religious debates. I just can't get enough. I even go over old one's that I've watched before to ether think up my own responses to questions presented or try to remember really good responses to questions presented.

You should get a life.





calm down big fella Girly's just dicking with you.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-05-2016, 09:15 PM
RE: Frank Turek
i'm often baffled by this kind of rhetoric because

1. the theist seems to think he can just take his position for granted

What about gods laws or his nature makes it inherently good that's not begging the question i mean it really is a euth op hor dilemma is it good because it's his nature or is it his nature and that makes it good

If they try for the he created you therefore argument aka the creation principle. I ask what about god creating me obligates me to obey him care about his nature or what he thinks and why we should regard it as good .

As for his argument about moral ontology i argue he fails to make a case the morals made of chemicals cannot lead to contracts or obligations with bite or how having something like a god make them obligatory morals or laws

If he appeals to moral intuitions then (feelings of right and wrong ) i ask how he knows what he's feeling is right or wrong simply saying everyone is sickened by rape will not do for proving some transcendent principle. After all whats counts as rape again did the belief among Christians for hundreds of years that woman is your property and it's her obligation to screw you on demand was that rape ?.

As for his argument about the so-called immateriality of concepts like justice he seems to mistake naturalism for materialism and both for atheism. Ifor instance am neither even if you could prove them immaterial it gets you no closer to god plus it's a clear fallacy of taking concepts and treating them as self-existent entities with a transcendent existence of there own but even if such transcendence existed it wouldn't prove a god exists

pascal wager in a nut shell

god essentially wants a army of cowardly slaves who love it out of a selfish desire not to be punished and avoid said punishment by ideological luck
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-05-2016, 07:12 AM
RE: Frank Turek
Turek seems like a nice enough guy but he has a serious compartmentalization problem. In the debate with Hitchens, I don't think he understood many of the points Hitchens was making. The audience QnA was great, especially the answer to the guy who asked him why he did what he did.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 01:16 PM
RE: Frank Turek
(29-05-2016 08:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(28-05-2016 03:52 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  I continually watch religious debates. I just can't get enough. I even go over old one's that I've watched before to ether think up my own responses to questions presented or try to remember really good responses to questions presented.

You should get a life.





calm down big fella Girly's just dicking with you.

[Image: tumblr_o3h3odl25Y1uagw65o1_400.gif]

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
31-05-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: Frank Turek



Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
31-05-2016, 07:35 PM
RE: Frank Turek
Frank Turek and Bart Ehrman need to debate each other
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: