Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_marg]

My main objection would be from the book itself. On page 157, Dawkins lays out his argument:

This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points.

1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect… has been to explain how the
complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.

2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design
itself…

3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer… It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable [than the design itself]…

4. The most ingenious and powerful [explanation of complexity] so far discovered is
Darwinian evolution by natural selection…

5. We don’t yet have an equivalent [theory] for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory
could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for
biology…

6. We should not give up hope of a better [theory] arising in physics, something as
powerful as Darwinism is for biology…

With those 6 premises, he concludes thus:

If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion- the God Hypothesis- is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist.

You can't get 'God does not exist' from those 6 premises, it's totally invalid. The paper I sent you tried to fix this, but it still doesn't work.

Yes, I remember reading that part thinking evolution doesn't prove God doesn't exist...that his argument seemed to be arguing it did and was misleading. However, I don't generally discard entire books because I see a weakness in one part. I find critics of the New Atheists generally criticize them by misrepresenting their arguments and giving them positions which they are unlikely to hold. They aren't stupid, but critics try to make them so. They generally are referring to an interfering with mankind religious God when being critical of the concept of God...as opposed to some deistic sort of God.

[_Molok]

The other forum wouldn't happen to be 4chan, now would it?

Don't think for a second I didn't see Moral Bear for what he was. I don't have the honor of being a /B/tard however.

Hey now, moral bear takes great umbrage with your lies and slander. Pedobear is his evil twin, nothing more!

[_huckelberry]

The monologue had some smart points. It is true the world is older than 7000 years and it is true that genetic variations could add some information to a reproducing organism, especially help by natural selection. I am sure we all heard a bunch of things we agree with. It did however sound smarmy to me.

I think there may be a difficulty in a debate allowing only one person to speak who then gets to create the characterization of all opposing viewpoints. Seems a poor debate even if some pointes made are accurate and worthwile. I agree Christians in this country are ridiculous when they claim to be persecuted by secular forces.

I agree that atheism is not religion. However sometimes religous people demand a debate consiting only of listening to themselves. They sound smarmy when they do. Perhaps there is here a source of confusion. When an atheist sounds as smarmy as a tv evangel it creates a superficial confusion about which is the religous group.

[_EAllusion]

I don't think debate is a good way to address these kind of questions.

Every now and there'll be an upswing of a debate circuit with creationists. Creationists traditionally kill at those things unless someone like Ken Miller happens to be around. The reason for this is fairly straightforward.

1) Creationists often are more skilled public speakers due to the background they come from.

and

2) It is far, far easier to string together a series of atrocious arguments/assertions than it is to break down and explain what is wrong with them. This rhetorical tactic is sometimes called the Gish Gallop because of Duane Gish's mastery of it.

I think pretty much the exact same thing happens in most atheist/theist debates I've seen. (In fact, creationist argumentation is usually a part of most atheist/theist debates I've seen.) William Lane Craig, who "wins" just about every debate I've seen him in is one heck of a public speaker and all Gish Gallop. Unfortunately, neither of those traits have anything to do with arriving at truth through oral discourse.

Take those debates to written format where people have the time and space to reply as needed, and I think you have a much more appropriate outlet to explore the ins and outs of issues. Even then, though, I recommend trying to stay away from tackling too many arguments at once.

[_Some Schmo]

Before we get going, can you please point to one of your original arguments on the subject? It appears you must have many, or even one, judging by your statements.

LOL... typical.

You made the assertion that Dawkins' book was terrible, so I asked you what about it you didn't like, you mention somebody else that offered a criticism, I ask you to summarize the criticism since you claim it as your own, and you evade that simple request as though I'm accusing you of not having an original argument.

So now, what subject am I supposed to be offering you an original argument on, again? This wouldn't be smoke and mirrors to cover your ignorance again, would it?

by the way, look for a summary of those texts online, rather simple thing to do, embrace technology.

No dude, I don't care about their thoughts on the subject. I asked you for yours (and it would be understandable if there was some overlap there). But apparently, you don't have any.

I can't say I'm surprised.

[_lostindc]

No dude, I don't care about their thoughts on the subject. I asked you for yours (and it would be understandable if there was some overlap there). But apparently, you don't have any.

I can't say I'm surprised.

So in other words...you do not have an original thought on the topic but you criticize those who utilize the strong arguments of others. Just as I thought. I expected this much from you...

Go follow your prophet (Dawkins)

[_Some Schmo]

So in other words...you do not have an original thought on the topic but you criticize those who utilize the strong arguments of others. Just as I thought. I expected this much from you...

Go follow your prophet (Dawkins)

Do you really imagine you're fooling anyone with this misdirection?

I have often paraphrased arguments put forward by others. I'm not at all critical of that. What I am critical of is thinking you can get away with making an argument by mentioning the name of someone else who made the argument you want to make. That's not making a argument, that's just dropping a name. It sounds to me like you don't really understand their argument; otherwise, why resist summarizing it in your own words?

Here's a question: What's the topic you want an original argument from me on?! I asked you that before, you don't tell me and then accuse me of not having an original thought on whatever you think the topic is. Pretty stupid, don't you think?

[_Darth J]

I'm not an atheist and I still think this video is hilarious, because the moderator is discussing typical biblical- literalist Christian talking points.

But if evolution is not cosmology, as he says, then how is evolution proof in favor of atheism?

It is certainly proof against the Adam and Eve story being literally true and the Noah's ark/global flood being literally true----both of which are taught by the LDS Church.

But why does evolution imply that there is no "God" of any kind at all?

[_marg]

But why does evolution imply that there is no "God" of any kind at all?

It doesn't. However perhaps Dawkins was presenting a counter argument to a theist position that complexity of life or intelligent design is evidence for a God. So to someone who uses that as reasoning in support of a God, evolution counters it..all the complexity can be accounted for by evolution. And if complexity observed in the universe is a reason for God then how of course how did God ever get created. So I suspect Dawkins was addressing the argument to believers perhaps many if not most think of complexity as evidence for God. Didn't you put up a picture of a sexy girl as evidence for God?:)

[_MrStakhanovite]

Well, first off, I highly doubt (although I could be wrong) that Plato and Aristotle meant that god was transcendent of existence itself (as though the very thought of existence was beneath him). "Yeah, I don't do existence. How passé, retro-beginning-of-time is that? Not for me, bubba!"

You said 'existence' I took it mean, the universe. To be transcendent is to be outside of our universe, outside space and time. If you take 'existence' to mean, "either something exists or it doesn't" then the concept of being above existence is self refuting. You either exist or you don't, the options are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive.

And secondly, I also highly doubt that you average theist thinks of god in the same terms as Plato and Aristotle.

I don't think so either.

Dawkins wasn't arguing against some esoteric, philosophical god. He was arguing against your banal, joe church-goer god.

And when they turn to apologetics books, this is the description of God they are going to get.

And the fact remains, there's a definition of god for every single person who believes in a god (that's what I now think of when I hear the term "personal god." Oh yeah, he's personal all right). If the objection is that Dawkins didn't cover every single god concept, well, that's not much of an criticism at all.

When you deal with a concept or idea like God, and you are a public intellectual like Dawkins, it's probably best that you take on the most eloquent and strongest cases for God.

When South Park satirizes a drama, does it become a drama? If it makes fun of a religion, does it then become a religion?

It remains a poor comedy.

Do you really think Dawkins and Co are unaware that these kinds of ceremonies could be construed as ritualistic?

Yes. I think everyone in those organizations are totally self absorbed and don't know how stupid they look and act.

Do you really think they think of them as rituals?

No, I see it as another avenue for them to be smug and self important.

Look, it's one thing to criticize arguments and ideas, but it's not then fair to extrapolate from certain weak arguments that Dawkins is a complete idiot.

He is far from being an idiot. This one book, is just really bad.

If so, why can only religions have ceremonies without provoking your mockery?

Because most infant baptisms are local and not steeped in pretentious douchebaggery like this was.

And why shouldn't (some at least, if not all) people who are proud of their new baby like the idea of a 'big name' being involved in his or her naming?

I know, nothing screams " PROUD PARENT!!!!!!11!!" Like a couple who drives over 200 miles to a convention so a bunch of big names in certain circles can partake in a meaningless ritual where the only other family member present is one grandparent (Who isn't affiliated with any other Free Thought groups, BECAUSE THAT IS REALLY IMPORANT AT AN ATHEIST CONVENTION AMIRITE!?!??!).

Yeah, that's really breaking the mold and being edgy.

What a bunch of Dawkfags.

What's the problem there stak, with people appreciating the value of ceremonies for important to them occasions?

Did they have Sam Harris come out and given a sermon about the FSM and everyone got a pasta sacrament? I don't think you see my point here.

However, I don't generally discard entire books because I see a weakness in one part.

His main argument against the existence of God does not even follow logically. Validity isn't a hard place to get to. If he can't show strong evidence against the existence of God, then his move to call it a delusion doesn't work.



Atheism can and does become a cult of personality every bit as religious as those who they mock. For example: