A good athiesm / theism debate. (Well, I liked it...)

[_Ren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2j0a4Tkj ... re=related

Not that both sides didn't come up with some pretty dumb stuff, but I thought there were also a lot of good points made - by both sides. And I just liked the general passion involved - I found it quite entertaining... :) Bit of a shame it had to get personal at certain points - but it's generally inevitable in these kinda things...

[_beastie]

It was interesting, thanks for linking it. Pretty long so I doubt many others will listen. Of course I found the atheists' arguments more compelling, but aside from that, it seemed to me that the atheists were being accused of "hitting below the belt" and perhaps breaking the "no ridicule" rule right away, and I really did not see it. Am I just too biased to hear what the atheists said that was an ad hom, below the belt? Or is it that, as we see on MAD, the believers are so enmeshed within their belief system that serious criticism of the belief system feels automatically like an attack 'below the belt'?

[_Ren]

Well, I think that Dan Barker did go -well, if not 'below the belt' then he was at least flirting with it...

But let's also be fair - the opening 15 minutes had a theists calling the opposing argument 'evil'. Flat out. I'd say the theists struck first...
I don't find the claim that Dan was hitting low particularly challenging. I think he was. I think he was pretty much openly mocking at certain points...

Dan was my least favorite debater out of the four to be honest. The two theists were also fairly condescending, but I just thought they did it with a little more style....

My favorite debater was Richard Carrier - by far. He just got up and put forward a very solid, logical and sensible argument, without fuss or embellishment. As far as I'm concerned - he kept it on the point, didn't get 'personal' and was very respectful. (At least right up until the end ;) ) Not to say he didn't make mistakes - he made a pretty big one with the 'we haven't seen...' comment later in part 2. (In the sense that he should have known what was meant with the word 'see').

Also, neither of the atheists should have gotten dragged into the morality avenues in my opinion. The title of the debate was 'Does God Not Exist'. Instead of letting the theists drag them into an irrelevant cul-de-sac, I feel they should have made it clear - right from the start - that it doesn't matter HOW bad a universe a godless universe would be, or is felt it would be. It makes absolutely no difference to:

* Any possible logical deduction of the existence of God
* Any reasonable calculation of a probability relating to the existence of God.

It has nothing to do with it. And I'd have liked them to make sure that got nailed down. Instead, they let the theists drive that point along as much as they liked, despite the fact that it had nothing to do with the question at hand...

[_beastie]

Yes, I agree that the morality argument is moot. When theists take that approach, they are simply affirming that they wouldn't approve of a universe with no god, or might find it offensive or frightening. But you're absolutely right, it has nothing to do with the existence of god. Well, I guess in a round-about way it might be, if theists frame it as morality couldn't exist without god, and since morality exists, so must god. In that vein, then pointing out how morality could evolve naturally could be pertinent.

I thought the ending rebuttals by the theists were particularly bad. By that point, I think both were offended and angry, and were below the belt almost the entire time. And what the heck was the point about fingerprints??? Everyone's fingerprints are different so that means... what???

[_Ren]

Well, I guess in a round-about way it might be, if theists frame it as morality couldn't exist without god, and since morality exists, so must god. In that vein, then pointing out how morality could evolve naturally could be pertinent.

Yeah - you've said it well there.

...the theist side gets the atheist side to try and prove their sense of morality is essentially the same as theirs. Bzzzz - bad idea to get caught in that trap ;)
...I would deny the premise from the start...

"You believe in 'magic' morality. I don't. That doesn't mean I don't believe in 'morality'..."

But if you don't make that clear from the start - and you give the impression that you are tasking yourself with matching atheistic morality with theistic morality as part of your main argument, I think you're on the road to nowhere.
...your gonna have a tough time making the non-magical look as impressive as the magical. What you CAN say is that the non-magical has a tad more connection to reality :)

..and of course - make very sure it's clear that either way, the topic has nothing to do with the topic in hand - which is the existence of God. Make that clear right from the start...!

I thought the ending rebuttals by the theists were particularly bad.

The reasoning of the theists was routinely bad. I actually preferred Hassanain to Michael Corey. At least Hassanain concentrated on airy-fairy philosophical concerns - in an arena where, if he could drag the atheists over, he could legitimately tangle them up. And I think he actually did a pretty good job of it too...

I found Michael Corey really annoying, because he was trying really hard to come across as the 'voice' of science. It was quite offensive to see how far he abused that impression sometimes. And I feel sorry for anybody who was duped by it...

[_beastie]

Corey certainly looked ridiculous when he claimed that the atheists were poorly prepared because they hadn't read HIS (Corey's) book, in which he's apparently made groundbreaking claims!! Evidently Corey has done the previously unthinkable, and proven God's existence!!

[_Moniker]

Well, I'm gonna have to listen. I certainly hope the perfection of the banana is discussed. Or it that hoping for too much? I hope then they'll move to the watermelon and kiwi fuit.

[_Ren]

Evidently Corey has done the previously unthinkable, and proven God's existence!!

Meh - small fries - Ray Comfort already proved God's existence scientifically. Using a banana no less. Speaking of which...

I certainly hope the perfection of the banana is discussed.

Alas - no! No bananas were produced and held aloft during the debate.
...yeah - I was disappointed too... :/

You do have Micheal Corey claiming that it is scientifically proven that natural selection cannot account for intelligence though. Because Natural Selection can't stand large heads...!
...it's quite entertaining :) He's not a patch on the comic genius of old Comfort, but quite good non-the-less :)

[_Moniker]

Alas - no! No bananas were produced and held aloft during the debate.
...yeah - I was disappointed too... :/

Well, that is indeed rather a downer. :( Oh, well. I'll watch it in the morning. I started it a while ago and my attention span is waning as it's rather late here.
But, thought I'd give this a wee *bump*.

You do have Micheal Corey claiming that it is scientifically proven that natural selection cannot account for intelligence though. Because Natural Selection can't stand large heads...!

Oh! Well, that certainly makes it worth the effort to watch it -- later. :)