Coyote wrote:tiltbillings wrote:And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."
What arguments would you consider not "lame"?
I can't think of any that stand up to serious scrutiny.
Modens Ponens: I saw that guy debating before. Therefore I really, really doubt that giants like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris refused to debate him _ a mildly intelligent christian.
rowboat wrote:Both Hitchens and Harris were soundly defeated in their debates, as was Lawrence Krauss. (The second video I posted is the Krauss debate.)
For those of us who don't have time to watch the 2 hour videos, can you give us some examples of how they were soundly defeated in debate? The theistic arguments are mostly so weak, I find it hard to believe that they were defeated in debate. Of course who wins or loses is highly subjective and based on one's interpretation. So I'd like to see what great points the theists made against Hitchens and Harris.
rowboat wrote:No, I don't think so, David. I'm sure you and others can find the time soon enough, if you have enough interest. Also William Lane Craig has published thirty books and over one hundred peer reviewed articles in philosophy and theology. I imagine these are widely available.
Sam Vara wrote:Even if a debater is ritually humiliated, loses the vote, and publicly recants his/her earlier position, one might remain convinced. They might be great spectator sports (well, ahead of dog-fighting and boxing, anyway) but I think they are better at confirming views than uncovering truth.
Sam Vara wrote:It might be worth considering that winning or losing debates has little to do with whether one's beliefs in a God or no God are truly justified. A debate is a staged event which relies heavily upon rhetoric, force of personality, and the effective presentation of arguments in a public setting. Even if a debater is ritually humiliated, loses the vote, and publicly recants his/her earlier position, one might remain convinced. They might be great spectator sports (well, ahead of dog-fighting and boxing, anyway) but I think they are better at confirming views than uncovering truth.
Modus.Ponens wrote:Therefore I really, really doubt that giants like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris refused to debate him ...
You can't even list a few one or two liners of his points? Surely there must be something that stuck out that made you think he soundly defeated them?
mikenz66 wrote:Modus.Ponens wrote:Therefore I really, really doubt that giants like Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris refused to debate him ...
I have great respect for Dawkins' popular-level explanations of evolution an so on. He is an excellent science communicator, which was his day job.
That doesn't automatically make him a "giant" in other areas, and I didn't think much of The God Delusion, which I read soon after discovering the Dhamma. It soon became clear, from the book, an from interviews, that he had a poor grasp of the nuances of Christian Theology. Furthermore, at one point he discussed the concept of not-self (from a scientific POV, and he did it very well, it would have sounded good in a Dhamma talk) but seemed quite unaware that this was a key part of the Buddha's approach. Perhaps if he'd taken a little time to talk to some of his Oxford colleagues (such as Richard Gombrich) he would have had a better understanding of ideas outside of his own area.
rowboat wrote:One of the brightest Christian Apologists is named William Lane Craig. Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Lawrence Krauss, many others, all have lost debates with Craig. Richard Dawkins once issued a challenge but then quickly thought better of it. In response to Dawkins, Craig decided to challenge Dawkins himself by inviting him to debate "The God Delusion" at Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre. Dawkins decided not to attend so WLC addressed an empty chair in his place.
Sam Harris: I believe that I have successfully argued for the use of torture in any circumstance in which we would be willing to cause collateral damage (p198)
Given what many of us believe about the exigencies of our war on terrorism, the practice of torture, in certain circumstances, would seem to be not only permissible, but necessary. (p199)
Hedges: I write in the book that not believing in God is not dangerous. Not believing in sin is very dangerous. I think both the Christian right and the New Atheists in essence don’t believe in their own sin, because they externalize evil. Evil is always something out there that can be eradicated. For the New Atheists, it’s the irrational religious hordes. I mean, Sam Harris, at the end of his first book, asks us to consider a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. Both Hitchens and Harris defend the use of torture. Of course, they’re great supporters of preemptive war, and I don’t think this is accidental that their political agendas coalesce completely with the Christian right.
David Snyder: Craig's premises are completely without basis and fact. Like most theistic arguments they contain the conclusion in the premises, classic petitio principii (fallacy).
rowboat wrote:Actually Dawkins issued an open challenge to debate with anyone and then WLC stepped forward. Then Dawkins backpedaled and clarified, saying he would "only debate a Bishop or a Cardinal," which of course is laughable.
And now Dawkins is claiming the reason he won't debate William Lane Craig is because WLC "advocates genocide." Strange.
that would be true if the refusal hadn't already happened previously.
I do not know who Dawkins is or is not friends with, not that that actually matters as it would be the underpinning reasons for such action being advocated that would show hipocracy on Dawkins part.
But just to note I have never seen wlc actually counter a scientific theory, nor win an argument because he counters with wordplay and fallacious points. Debates are, however, rarely won on the merits of the argument, and more often on the charisma of the participants.
"Well, first let me say that it's an honour to be here at Notre Dame. And I'm very happy to be debating Dr. Craig - the one Christian Apologist who seems to have put the fear of god into many of my fellow atheists. I've actually gotten more than a few emails this week, that more or less read, 'brother, please don't blow this.'" - Sam Harris
cooran wrote:"Buddhism and the God Idea" by Nyanaponika Thera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html
tiltbillings wrote:And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."
Sam Vara wrote:It might be worth considering that winning or losing debates has little to do with whether one's beliefs in a God or no God are truly justified.
Over one hundred papers! But seriously, you should write to him and see if you can engage him in a discussion, David.
Here is his contact info
binocular wrote:I am still waiting to see some good arguments against God.
binocular wrote:cooran wrote:"Buddhism and the God Idea" by Nyanaponika Thera
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html
What exactly does this mean?
If one doesn't subsscribe to the ideas in this essay, then one is not fit to be a Buddhist?
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], robertk and 14 guests