And therefore, God does not exist!

[tiltbillings]

The OP is definitely satirical, its spoofing common arguments FOR the existence of god . . . presumably with the intent of showing how flimsy they are?

Or maybe she trying very hard to beat up arguments against the idea of a god.

Yeah, beating up _lame_ arguments against the idea of God.

And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."

[Spiny Norman]

ARGUMENT FROM LACK OF FEAR
If God exists then I’m going to Hell.
I’m not afraid of Hell. New Jersey is much worse.
Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

[Coyote]

And not touching, of course, those arguments that are not "lame."

What arguments would you consider not "lame"?

[rowboat]

What arguments would you consider not "lame"?

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.

phpBB .

William Lane Craig debates Lawrence Krauss:

phpBB .

[Modus.Ponens]

What arguments would you consider not "lame"?

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.

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.

The god notion is silly. We only think it's normal because we are used to hear it.

[Spiny Norman]

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.

[rowboat]

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.

If you go back and read my post again you will find that I said only Richard Dawkins has been ducking William Lane Craig. Both Hitchens and Harris were soundly defeated in their debates, as was Lawrence Krauss. (The second video I posted is the Krauss debate.)

"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

By this point I anticipate that you, perhaps by the power of instinct alone, have assumed that (a) I am a Christian, and (b) I believe in god. So to save us both any further aggravation, I assure you neither is true.

[DNS]

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.

[Sam Vara]

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.

[rowboat]

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.

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.

Better yet, below is his contact information. Wouldn't it be fun if you contacted Dr Craig? Maybe you can engage with him and test the soundness of his arguments directly.

http://rf.convio.net/site/Survey?SURVEY ... R_REQUESTS

I haven't watched it in some time but if this is the complete version then, after dealing with Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion," WLC tangles with three Oxford professors in philosophy in the last half hour or so (as well as taking questions from the floor.)

phpBB .

[DNS]

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.

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?

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.

True; even if a debater makes some blunders, this does little to provide any support or refutation of a position, it could just be shooting the messenger instead of the message.

[rowboat]

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.

Yes, of course. I only brought William Lane Craig to the thread because I don't believe he fits anyone's definition of "lame" when it comes to argumentation.

[mikenz66]

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.


Mike

[rowboat]

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?

No, I'm not going to re-watch any of those videos, David. Once was enough. Besides, you really deserve the full William Lane Craig Experience. Save it for the weekend.

[Mkoll]

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.


Mike

I agree. His book The Selfish Gene was pretty revolutionary and is still very insightful.

But he's become a crusader against religion which is really quite sad given the man's high intelligence; he should have seen it's not his domain. It's certainly given him attention and notoriety with all of the perks that come along with it. It goes to show that even the smartest (not wisest) people can have serious blind spots.