One of DCP’s example “highly intelligent” believers embarrassed in recent debate

[drumdude]

“Oh!” he exclaimed. “How can any intelligent person believe in such nonsense [Christian atonement]?”

Well, the fact is that highly intelligent people have accepted Christianity. (Origen, Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Kierkegaard, C. S. Lewis, Peter Kreeft, Richard Swinburne, Alvin Plantinga, N. T. Wright, and Nicholas Wolterstorff are among those who come immediately to mind.)

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... gions.html

Richard Swinburne was recently proposing that homosexual marriage is wrong, using scripture as one of his justifications. When his atheist debater pointed out the (very basic) fact that the Bible has explicit rules for the institution of slavery, perhaps we should be wary of emphasizing the scant passages about homosexuality.

The “highly intelligent” Richard Swinburne went to that old familiar shell game, that the Old Testament must be interpreted through Jesus. Alex, the atheist, then proceeded to quote Jesus on how slaves should obey their masters.

At this point, the “highly intelligent” Richard Swinburne appears agitated, and remarks “that’s enough scripture for now.”

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. Unless you’re a Christian or Mormon apologist!

The short video of the above exchange is available here:
https://youtube.com/shorts/EuZTsQY4q_4

The full debate is available here:
https://youtu.be/rI1OevN2FDI?si=EEHi_KEX6SHAm9OU

I don’t blame DCP for not doing debates anymore. Theists simply cannot hide their arguments being embarrassed for the shallow vapid bigotry and misinformation that they often are.

[Everybody Wang Chung]

That video was brutal. For such a "highly intelligent" person, he sure comes off looking like a complete idiot.

[Rivendale]

If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid, informed, and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.

Blame reversal strikes again. The key word is satisfying. Gemli was right, one major motivation for evolved apes is the ongoing fear of death. The idea that there may not be anything after death is far too terrifying to contemplate. So scary a story of a boy creating scripture via a peep stone is swallowed hook line and sinker.

[I Have Questions]

If a substantial number of sane and intelligent people believe something that seems to you utterly without sense, the problem probably lies with you, for not grasping what it is about that belief that a lucid, informed, and reasonable person might find plausible and satisfying.

Blame reversal strikes again. The key word is satisfying. Gemli was right, one major motivation for evolved apes is the ongoing fear of death. The idea that there may not be anything after death is far too terrifying to contemplate. So scary a story of a boy creating scripture via a peep stone is swallowed hook line and sinker.

To be fair, that is a powerful motivation to believe in something, anything, that removes the notion of non existence. I can see how that might override a person’s normal tolerance for the irrational and illogical.

[sock puppet]

Blame reversal strikes again. The key word is satisfying. Gemli was right, one major motivation for evolved apes is the ongoing fear of death. The idea that there may not be anything after death is far too terrifying to contemplate. So scary a story of a boy creating scripture via a peep stone is swallowed hook line and sinker.

To be fair, that is a powerful motivation to believe in something, anything, that removes the notion of non existence. I can see how that might override a person’s normal tolerance for the irrational and illogical.

When I was young, I too felt that motivation borne out of wishful thinking that we never ended. As I am growing old, and feel my mind growing tired as well as my body, I think a "lights out" at death is more appealing.

[I Have Questions]

To be fair, that is a powerful motivation to believe in something, anything, that removes the notion of non existence. I can see how that might override a person’s normal tolerance for the irrational and illogical.

When I was young, I too felt that motivation borne out of wishful thinking that we never ended. As I am growing old, and feel my mind growing tired as well as my body, I think a "lights out" at death is more appealing.

That’s interesting. I’m not there yet. I still find the notion of “something” after death appealing. But I can’t see any evidence that there is, and my tolerance for the irrational and illogical is still nil.

[huckelberry]

Richard Swinburne was recently proposing that homosexual marriage is wrong, using scripture as one of his justifications. When his atheist debater pointed out the (very basic) fact that the Bible has explicit rules for the institution of slavery, perhaps we should be wary of emphasizing the scant passages about homosexuality.

The “highly intelligent” Richard Swinburne went to that old familiar shell game, that the Old Testament must be interpreted through Jesus. Alex, the atheist, then proceeded to quote Jesus on how slaves should obey their masters.

At this point, the “highly intelligent” Richard Swinburne appears agitated, and remarks “that’s enough scripture for now.”

Folks, you can’t make this stuff up. Unless you’re a Christian or Mormon apologist!

The short video of the above exchange is available here:
https://youtube.com/shorts/EuZTsQY4q_4

The full debate is available here:
https://youtu.be/rI1OevN2FDI?si=EEHi_KEX6SHAm9OU

The full debate is a difficult subject without resolution anywhere I know of. I watched portions. I rather Iiked the woman who studied Hindu culture more than Mr. Swinburne but he brought up some interesting points. He is smart enough to know that scripture comparisons will not solve the ethical question. He sees our understanding as a developing thing. The comment about interpreting the Old Testament in light of the New is well worn but hardly dumb.

I thought his point about keeping promises interesting. I do not agree with his idea that homosexual marriage will weaken marriage.

I am adding to these comments.

I think the short version linked is not a very fair representation. The subject of the debate is what sort of basis do we have for thinking about moral judgments and disagreement over the same. Homosexual marriage was a passing example not the focus of the actual debate. It is in that context that Swinburne's observations about obligation, honesty, and promises have importance.

I checked Google for a little personal information. He is 90 years old which may explain why he was uncomfortable sitting, appearing ill at ease. To me it is clear his turn from scripture bashing was intelligent recognition that it was not helpful for either the large subject or for the particular example.

[Rivendale]

When I was young, I too felt that motivation borne out of wishful thinking that we never ended. As I am growing old, and feel my mind growing tired as well as my body, I think a "lights out" at death is more appealing.

That’s interesting. I’m not there yet. I still find the notion of “something” after death appealing. But I can’t see any evidence that there is, and my tolerance for the irrational and illogical is still nil.

Appealing? Unless there is some kind of eternal motivation that we are unaware of I think eternity would get boring. Maybe the first few thousand years would be interesting but then what? The Mormon view of heaven is hideous. Eternal worship? Missionary work?

[huckelberry]

That’s interesting. I’m not there yet. I still find the notion of “something” after death appealing. But I can’t see any evidence that there is, and my tolerance for the irrational and illogical is still nil.

Appealing? Unless there is some kind of eternal motivation that we are unaware of I think eternity would get boring. Maybe the first few thousand years would be interesting but then what? The Mormon view of heaven is hideous. Eternal worship? Missionary work?

I an old enough to think on occasion that life after death is very difficult to make sense of. Any picture is a cartoon at best.

I have not heard the idea that missionary work was involved. Is this some sort of extension of this new fangled idea of senior missions? In life after death is God some sort of secret, go to the folks hanging out and say, "Have you heard of Joseph Smith?"

[I Have Questions]

That’s interesting. I’m not there yet. I still find the notion of “something” after death appealing. But I can’t see any evidence that there is, and my tolerance for the irrational and illogical is still nil.

Appealing? Unless there is some kind of eternal motivation that we are unaware of I think eternity would get boring. Maybe the first few thousand years would be interesting but then what? The Mormon view of heaven is hideous. Eternal worship? Missionary work?

I agree that Mormonism presentation of an afterlife isn’t attractive. Perhaps it’s more that the idea of not existing is unappealing.