The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Dre89]

It seems that people don't want to vote here first. We might as well just all vote in secrecy, it's not as if it's that big of a deal if the right person doesn't win.

Is there even a prize for it?

 

[Theftz22]

This is actually pretty hilarious.

Argument Against the Existence of God from William Lane Craig (AKA Argument from Craig)

1. Per mainstream Christian theology*, WLC will go to Heaven (he has fulfilled the requirement of believing in and accepting Jesus).
2. Heaven is a perpetual state of doing what you love to do.
3. WLC loves to debate atheists.
4. There are no atheists in Heaven (they do not fulfill the requirement in 1).
5. WLC will not be able to do something he loves to do in Heaven (per 3 and 4), which derives a contradiction (with 2).
6. Therefore, either Heaven can't exist, or WLC cannot go to to Heaven. But he will go to Heaven (per 1), so Heaven can't exist.
7. If Heaven can't exist, then mainstream Christian theology is false, and the God of Christianity doesn't exist.

by GRWelsh

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

This is actually pretty hilarious.

Argument Against the Existence of God from William Lane Craig (AKA Argument from Craig)

1. Per mainstream Christian theology*, WLC will go to Heaven (he has fulfilled the requirement of believing in and accepting Jesus).
2. Heaven is a perpetual state of doing what you love to do.
3. WLC loves to debate atheists.
4. There are no atheists in Heaven (they do not fulfill the requirement in 1).
5. WLC will not be able to do something he loves to do in Heaven (per 3 and 4), which derives a contradiction (with 2).
6. Therefore, either Heaven can't exist, or WLC cannot go to to Heaven. But he will go to Heaven (per 1), so Heaven can't exist.
7. If Heaven can't exist, then mainstream Christian theology is false, and the God of Christianity doesn't exist.

by GRWelsh

Dude. That's one of the best parody arguments I've ever seen. You deserve a cookie.

 

[Theftz22]

I would love to claim credit, but as I said:

by GRWelsh

 

[ciaza]

voting in secrecy it is then, i'm probably trying too hard to get some semblance of a project after 64 board awards went down in flames. >_>

i'm loving the activity happening in the DH/PG now too. thank goodness we have newbies like Holder of the Heel (dubbing him HotH from now on) and GofG to make things interesting again in PG. i'm thinking both those guys should be up for review in the JC after they get a debate in (let Dre. slug it out with GofG more, and wait for Tery to reply to HotH). old members posting in the DH more helps as well.

something i should probably do soon actually.

.

i blame skyrim for my lack of activity.

 

[Dre89]

Heaven is just meant to be eternal communion with God, not doing what you want.

Also certain denominations believe atheists can to to Heaven if they're good people, but I don't Craig does though.

Which is a shame, because it ruins a funny argument.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

This is actually pretty hilarious.

Argument Against the Existence of God from William Lane Craig (AKA Argument from Craig)

1. Per mainstream Christian theology*, WLC will go to Heaven (he has fulfilled the requirement of believing in and accepting Jesus).
2. Heaven is a perpetual state of doing what you love to do.
3. WLC loves to debate atheists.
4. There are no atheists in Heaven (they do not fulfill the requirement in 1).
5. WLC will not be able to do something he loves to do in Heaven (per 3 and 4), which derives a contradiction (with 2).
6. Therefore, either Heaven can't exist, or WLC cannot go to to Heaven. But he will go to Heaven (per 1), so Heaven can't exist.
7. If Heaven can't exist, then mainstream Christian theology is false, and the God of Christianity doesn't exist.

by GRWelsh

Oh my god I just burst out laughing in tech class. DAMMIT! xD That was hilarious, although I think that premise 3 is flawed, because what he loves is not so much debating atheists as being a ****whistle.

 

[Dre89]

It's as if certain atheists will hate any Christian that doesn't fit their romantic idea of a simple minded person who thinks blind faith is all you need for religion.

Granted, he does use some sneaky tactics, but he isn't on the same level of rudeness and disngenious behaviour as the likes of Dawkins and Krauss, and Bill O' Reily if you want to include non-academics.

 

[rvkevin]

Granted, he does use some sneaky tactics, but he isn't on the same level of rudeness and disingenuous behavior as the likes of Dawkins and Krauss, and Bill O' Reily if you want to include non-academics.

I would disagree, with the exception of Bill O'Reilly; he's in a separate league competing with the other Fox News associates.

 

[Dre89]

Can you explain why?

I can't see how anyone could consider him being in that league outside of being an anti theist.

 

[rvkevin]

O'Reilly is in the separate league, not Craig.

Edit: And how does being an anti-theist qualify as being disingenuous or rude for that matter?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

It's as if certain atheists will hate any Christian that doesn't fit their romantic idea of a simple minded person who thinks blind faith is all you need for religion.

Granted, he does use some sneaky tactics, but he isn't on the same level of rudeness and disngenious behaviour as the likes of Dawkins and Krauss, and Bill O' Reily if you want to include non-academics.

Craig essentially said outright that even if he was presented with a personal view of Jesus's tomb, and was able to view him rotting and, you know, not coming back to life, he would still believe in the resurrection. That's got to be worth mocking, and I think that qualifies him for "simple-minded person with blind faith".

Also, you're comparing the disingenuous behavior of Richard Dawkins with that of Bill O'Reilly?! Seriously? Ouch, dude.

 

[Nicholas1024]

Also, you're comparing the disingenuous behavior of Richard Dawkins with that of Bill O'Reilly?! Seriously? Ouch, dude.

Yeah, I know some people don't care for the guy, but there's no reason to go insulting O'Reilly like that.

*knows little about the stupidity of either party involved, but couldn't resist taking that particular shot anyway.*

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

O'Reilly is up there with Glenn Beck and Alex Jones. Seriously, he's bad.

 

[Theftz22]

Craig essentially said outright that even if he was presented with a personal view of Jesus's tomb, and was able to view him rotting and, you know, not coming back to life, he would still believe in the resurrection. That's got to be worth mocking, and I think that qualifies him for "simple-minded person with blind faith".

I don't know what you're sources are, but Craig explicitly says the opposite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1d78xdHLR3Y#t=2m45s

In his latest question of the week he says the same, but he adds that he could never be convinced that some bones are actually the bones of jesus.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=q_and_a

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=2931

It would be nice to know that he changed his mind, or that that citation is wrong, though.

 

[Dre89]

O'Reilly is in the separate league, not Craig.

Edit: And how does being an anti-theist qualify as being disingenuous or rude for that matter?

I meant to say that there is little reason for someone to hate Craig other than that person being an anti-theist.

Dawkins is far more disingenious than Craig, but O'Reily is in a leage of his own.

So apart from the ressurrection comment, why do people hate him so much?

 

[rvkevin]

Dawkins is far more disingenious than Craig, but O'Reily is in a leage of his own.

How so?

So apart from the ressurrection comment, why do people hate him so much?

Just curious, have you ever read the Q&A (He answers weekly e-mail questions, it's not some generic template) from his website?

 

[AltF4]

I think "hate him so much" is an overstatement. No atheist is sending Craig death threats over what he says. Which you can't say the same about any well known atheist. Dawkins gets a regular and large stream of death threats every day. You have to take them seriously. So consider that before you talk about hate.

But mostly it's:

a) Saddening to see religion poison what appears to be an otherwise intelligent mind. He'll put together one sound argument, then another sound argument, then BOOM complete nonsensical christian dogma.

b) Tries to dishonestly obscure his leaps in logic from deism to theism. I can follow where he comes from when he talks about god as if it's some "first cause". Some creator figure. And then somehow then comes to the conclusion that all of it must have come about by way of talking snakes, burning bushes, and ritualistic torture and murder. And talks of the historicity of the bible... as if that's even a subject worth mentioning... it's eye-roll-worthy.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- Because Dawkins is guilty of using his reputation in one profession to talk with a false sense of authority in a profession he has no qualification in. Craig at least makes an attempt to be scientifically informed, or references other scientists, regardless of whether his science is right or wrong. His opinion on God is the equivalent of a plumber's opinion. He's also quite disengenious in that he labels Craig a young Earth creationist, when Craig has publicly stated that the world is 13.7 billion years old, and will continue to criticise him yet refuse to debate him.

And I have read some of his Q and As, I'm actually using some of them in my paper (I basically just use them as criticism bait to up my word count). Why do you ask?

I think "hate him so much" is an overstatement. No atheist is sending Craig death threats over what he says. Which you can't say the same about any well known atheist. Dawkins gets a regular and large stream of death threats every day. You have to take them seriously. So consider that before you talk about hate


But mostly it's:

a) Saddening to see religion poison what appears to be an otherwise intelligent mind. He'll put together one sound argument, then another sound argument, then BOOM complete nonsensical christian dogma.

b) Tries to dishonestly obscure his leaps in logic from deism to theism. I can follow where he comes from when he talks about god as if it's some "first cause". Some creator figure. And then somehow then comes to the conclusion that all of it must have come about by way of talking snakes, burning bushes, and ritualistic torture and murder. And talks of the historicity of the bible... as if that's even a subject worth mentioning... it's eye-roll-worthy.

Dawkins isn't getting death threats from rational theists though, he's gettin them from the idiots, and there are idiots in every belief.

And I agree with you about the jump from deism to theism. I don't like his approach at all. He basically throws out numerous quick arguments for God, meaning he is taking a probabilistic approach, and wants people to believe that the atheist has to first refute all of them, and then erect a positive case of their own for atheism.

That isn't the case if they can demonstrate his god is logically impossible. Because he uses the probablistic approach, and doesn't justify the positive mp assumptions he makes, the atheist isn't required to justify the positive mp assumptions they themselves make.

Whereas with my thesis, it's only one argument to refute, but even if they do that it's a stalemate unless the atheist manages to justify their positive mp asusmptions.

 

[rvkevin]

Rv- Because Dawkins is guilty of using his reputation in one profession to talk with a false sense of authority in a profession he has no qualification in. Craig at least makes an attempt to be scientifically informed, or references other scientists, regardless of whether his science is right or wrong. His opinion on God is the equivalent of a plumber's opinion.

Dawkins has made it clear that he doesn't care about the philosopher's ivory tower version of God. He is certainly more concerned about the plumber's opinion. Also, so when Dawkins engages theologians such as Alister McGrath, Father George Coyne, John Lennox, is he not attempting to be informed?

When you are citing cosmologists who are intelligent design advocates on the topic of evolution, I have to question Craig's sincerity of being scientifically literate. Also, quote mining and then continuing to repeat the example when called out on it doesn't help either. Needless to say, quoting scientists is not enough. If that were the case, then creationists could say they were trying to be informed of the science when they quote Darwin and Dawkins in favor of their position. I don't think you would concede that the creationists who do this are attempting to understand the science, so why is it any different when Craig does it?

He's also quite disingenuous in that he labels Craig a young Earth creationist, when Craig has publicly stated that the world is 13.7 billion years old, and will continue to criticise him yet refuse to debate him.

Has Dawkins claimed that Craig is specifically a YEC? In the video of Dawkins being asked about a possible debate with Craig, he says that he doesn't debate creationists and people whose only claim to fame is that they are professional debaters. Craig's views are borderline creationist. When asked, he said he hasn't taken a firm position and that he would be somewhere between progressive creationism and theistic evolution. So while he may not be a died in the wool creationist, he still exhibits some of their most notable behaviors, such as misrepresenting evolution in public settings. I think Craig would fairly fall in the latter category as well. While he can cite some academic work, that's not what he's most known for.

Also, I don't blame anyone for not debating Craig. After all, who wants to be lectured on morality by someone who thinks genocide can be morally acceptable. I heard A.C. Grayling turned down a debate with Craig on this justification alone. I also don't see a problem in criticizing the view that genocide is wrong after denying such a debate. If the defenders of said view want to reply, they can do so. But then again, I tend to have a low view of debates to begin with. Now, if the offer was to have a conversation (Example), then I think that Dawkins has agreed to engage with creationists with that kind of format, so why the insistence on a debate?

And I have read some of his Q and As, I'm actually using some of them in my paper (I basically just use them as criticism bait to up my word count). Why do you ask?

Since I would cite some of the responses if I were to write a paper concerning the worse examples of employing the principle of charity.

Because he uses the probabilistic approach, and doesn't justify the positive mp assumptions he makes, the atheist isn't required to justify the positive mp assumptions they themselves make.

If this is the case, then he is talking with a false sense of authority when it comes to probability theory. The mistakes he makes are laughable. For example, he thinks a good argument is one in which the premises are more likely to be true than not. This leads to accepting arguments that have conclusions that are nearly certainly false. However, when called on this, he resorts back to the deductive phrasing asking which premise is false or likely false. However, in probability, you can have an argument where every premise is likely to be true, yet you are rationally obligated to reject the conclusion. He is either incompetent of what he is doing or being disingenuous. The design argument displays ignorance with regards to probability. Are you prepared to say that Craig is "guilty of using his reputation in one profession to talk with a false sense of authority in a profession he has no qualification in"?

 

[adumbrodeus]

It seems that people don't want to vote here first. We might as well just all vote in secrecy, it's not as if it's that big of a deal if the right person doesn't win.

Is there even a prize for it?

Perhaps we should have a debate-off for it. Would get some interest going around here.

 

[Dre89]

Some people, including myself, have already voted though. It seems too much effort and probably isn't really worth it.

 

[AltF4]

Dre, "rational" people do not by definition send death threats to strangers over whether an invisible sky monster does or doesn't exist. And yet that's what happens very often by only one side of that "debate".

You can't just ignore these people by calling them irrational and pretending they don't exist. If every theist was rational (even such as yourself) then I wouldn't be here caring about the subject. Neither would Dawkins nor any other scientist. The reason there is a debate at all is because the vast majority of theists are deliberately and purposefully irrational. (Ask any clergyman if faith is a virtue. IE: The intentional disregard of logic) The majority, not some insignificant minority, are continually trying to invade science classes with religious nonsense, infect children with their deceit, introduce legislation establishing official or preferred religions, and cause physical and emotional harm to those who disagree.

If there were no such irrational people, then I wouldn't care about the subject. I'd just say "Ehh, I guess I disagree, but who really cares." It's not a strawman to talk about these people. It's reality.

 

[Dre89]

Rv- I agree with most of what you said, but Dawkins only debates people educated in theology or some other discipline. He avoids people who's discipline is the defence of religion and God. That's not debating, that's philosophy of religion.

He could debate someone like Richard Swinburne, who isn't a debater by profession.

The problem with Dawkins not caring about sophisticated theism is that he portrays his work as attacking sophisticated theism. He doesn't clarify that his arguments work only against the simplistic religious framework. Many uneducated people (basically the only people who respect his work on God) think that he's destroyed the notion of God and is a legitimate player in academia concerning God.

He wouldn't bother debating academics if he wasn't trying to portray himself as defeating sophisticated theism. Except the thing is most people he debates aren't sophisticated theists by profession or education.

It'd be the equivalent of a Protestant challenging me to a debate concerning the historical reliabilty of the Bible. The fact that I'm a philosopher of religion will confuse the uneducated into thinking that I represent the highest level of biblical scholarship, when in fact I don't.

The only thing he's actually qualified to do is refute creationism. I don't mind when he does that, that's actually a matter of biology.

AltF4- I'm disturbed by the stupid religious masses too, in fact it's even compounded for me becaus I find the majority of atheists to be on a similar level of understanding (but they're still a lot better because they're not invasive).

Besides, the way the stupid religious masses are towards Dawkins has nothing to do with my personal views of him or his intellectual honesty, which is what we were originally talking about.

I don't dislike him as much as I used to do. I could have something to do with the fact I'm looking into biology more now, but I think it's more to do with watching clips of Bill O'Reily. Dawkins also once used to the phrase 'street cred', so instant respect for that.

 

[AltF4]

And this famous (and hilarious) video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2xGIwQfik

 

[Dre89]

It's funny hearing him say the F word.

 

[AltF4]

Then you'll love this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZuowNcuGsc

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To be honest, I think Richard Dawkins puts on a pretty good show. His book The God Delusion, while it was a bit of rant actually raised some rather good points and actually dealt with some of the more prominent arguments for god.

He's not as bad as Rabbi Shmuley by any means. His attempt to rebut Christopher Hitchen's points in a debate basically consisted of scientific inaccuracies and "you're making me sad".

 

[rvkevin]

The problem with Dawkins not caring about sophisticated theism is that he portrays his work as attacking sophisticated theism.

Can I get a reference?

 

[Dre89]

Can I get a reference?

Well firstly, his books is titled The 'God' Delusion, not The 'Religion Delusion'.

Secondly, he debates academics who study religion.

That and the fact he doesn't mention the distinction in his works, or at least I haven't seem him mention it.

Random question what's the difference between zoology and marine biology? Is there any difference apart from the marine specialisation?

 

[rvkevin]

Well firstly, his books is titled The 'God' Delusion, not The 'Religion Delusion'.

Secondly, he debates academics who study religion.

That and the fact he doesn't mention the distinction in his works, or at least I haven't seem him mention it.

Have you read the God Delusion? He defines the God Hypothesis on page 52, and it is more in line of what a lay person would believe than what a theologian would believe. For one, all he would have to show is that humans were not the product of a deliberate process and he would have made his case, which you already conceded would be relevant to his field of expertise. Considering this is what the majority of the U.S. believes (78% as of December '10), it seems reasonable to write a book making that the target. Focusing on the title of the book is akin to the critics who thought that the Selfish Gene meant that we had a gene that made us selfish. You have to actually read the book.

 

[Dre89]

The point is that he conveys to the public that that is all there is God and religion. This why he's been criticises by so many academics.

 

[rvkevin]

The point is that he conveys to the public that that is all there is God and religion. This why he's been criticises by so many academics.

So when he said in the video I linked before that the theologian's faith is completely different than the layman version, he is not conveying a distinction? He has done the exact opposite of what you accuse him of doing.

 

[Aesir]

Daniel Dennett is pretty cool guy.

 

[Dre89]

Yeah I saw that, and I was glad he said that, but it's not made clear in his works.

For example, I've had people reference Dawkins to me, because they think he actually refutes God.

 

[Aesir]

I <3 this man. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDIi7ShdWQw

 

[rvkevin]

Yeah I saw that, and I was glad he said that, but it's not made clear in his works.

For example, I've had people reference Dawkins to me, because they think he actually refutes God.

So when creationists think that Darwin thought the eye is irreducibly complex and is a major problem for the theory of evolution, is that a failure on the part of the author or reader? He may have not made it clear, but simply because someone misinterprets something, it does not automatically mean that the fault is on the author.

 

[Dre89]

I can't judge the Darwin situation because I'm not sure how clear he made it.

 

[rvkevin]

I can't judge the Darwin situation because I'm not sure how clear he made it.

Here it is:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real.