pinko Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I am reading the transcript of the above-mentioned debate between these two very able individuals speaking to the humanist position advanced by Christopher Hitchens and the religious view advanced by Tony Blair. As a humanist and an atheist I support the position advance by Christopher Hitchens. I suspect there are some here who will support the views advanced by Tony Blair. Quote
Shady Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 (edited) It would have been an intersting debate if it weren't for Tony Blair. He's completely unqualified to be part of this discussion. Edited March 18, 2011 by Charles Anthony deleted re-copied Opening Post Quote
Mr.Canada Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Since when is Tony Blair any sort of great theological mind? Quote "You are scum for insinuating that isn't the case you snake." -William Ashley Canadian Immigration Reform Blog
pinko Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Posted March 18, 2011 Since when is Tony Blair any sort of great theological mind? He certainly is quite articulate. Do you have an alternative in mind? Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 He certainly is quite articulate. Do you have an alternative in mind? Betsy? Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
pinko Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Posted March 18, 2011 Betsy? I am sure Christopher Hitchens would dispense with her in short order. Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 I am sure Christopher Hitchens would dispense with her in short order. It would be hellafun to watch though! Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Shady Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 He certainly is quite articulate. Do you have an alternative in mind? Oh, he's quite articulate. Unfortunately his base of knowledge on the subject is extremely limited. Quote
dre Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 It would be hellafun to watch though! Its already been done... DAWKINS VS BETSY. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f Quote I question things because I am human. And call no one my father who's no closer than a stranger
betsy Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 It would have been an intersting debate if it weren't for Tony Blair. He's completely unqualified to be part of this discussion. That's true. It's like watching an amateur tackle the likes of a young Cassius Clay. Quote
betsy Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Its already been done... DAWKINS VS BETSY. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f I'm having problems with my sound here....got to wait for hubby to fix it. Anyway, why is Dawkins interviewing? Isn't he supposed to be doing any scientific works or something? I guess he's a real publicity hound! Must be another book in the making. Quote
betsy Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Its already been done... DAWKINS VS BETSY. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f Thank you Dre for the link! Gotta be ready with my popcorn! Quote
pinko Posted March 18, 2011 Author Report Posted March 18, 2011 Thank you Dre for the link! Gotta be ready with my popcorn! Creationists are certainly entitled to their beliefs as primitive and unfounded as they may be. I much prefer the logic offered by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. The monotheistic religons offer hundreds of years of death and destruction and nothing else of much value. At the root of many wars and conflict is religon. One need only look to the Middle East or to the events in the former Yugoslavian state to appreciate what these primtive belief systems bring about. Closer to home we have these religious zealots who terrorize and kill doctors providing a legitimate service to pregnant women. In the debate Hitchens very ably dismantled the position advanced in support of the goodness of religon. On the merits a poll following the debate showed the majority accepted his point of view. Quote
Shady Posted March 18, 2011 Report Posted March 18, 2011 Creationists are certainly entitled to their beliefs as primitive and unfounded as they may be. I much prefer the logic offered by the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens. Hitches, yes. Dawkins, no. Dawkins is somewhat of a hack. However, Hitchens is great. Quote
betsy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 Now check this out. William Lane Craig vs Hitchens Quote
SF/PF Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 Now check this out. William Lane Craig vs Hitchens Craig throws around the word "objective" an awful lot, despite not having the slighest inkling as to what it means. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
betsy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) William Lane Craig on Dawkins and Dennett (audio only) Note: Dawkins refuses to debate Craig!!! Btw, Craig debated with Anthony Flew just before Flew converted. UPDATE: It’s a well-known but unfortunate fact that Richard Dawkins has refused to debate Bill Craig. But, coincidentally, he did this past weekend and Dr. Craig provides some of the details on his website (it may be necessary to login to view this). A Spanish-dubbed version of the debate is on YouTube, but the English version is said to be coming soon. More... http://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/william-lane-craig-debates-richard-dawkins/ Edited March 19, 2011 by betsy Quote
Shakeyhands Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 William Lane Craig on Dawkins and Dennett (audio only) Note: Dawkins refuses to debate Craig!!! Btw, Craig debated with Anthony Flew just before Flew converted. Quote "They muddy the water, to make it seem deep." - Friedrich Nietzsche
scouterjim Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 I am reading the transcript of the above-mentioned debate between these two very able individuals speaking to the humanist position advanced by Christopher Hitchens and the religious view advanced by Tony Blair. As a humanist and an atheist I support the position advance by Christopher Hitchens. I suspect there are some here who will support the views advanced by Tony Blair. Each to their own. Quote I have captured the rare duct taped platypus.
betsy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) Baloney! Wendy Wright is not a Bishop or a Cardinal. Dawkins' not confident to square off with Craig. I can see why. He lost his cool with Wright! Resorted to adhominem. But I see he ended up eating his insulting words and debated with Craig after all. I guess he realized he can't keep hiding behind his nonsense excuse....sooner or later he'll have to face Craig. Edited March 19, 2011 by betsy Quote
betsy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 Craig throws around the word "objective" an awful lot, despite not having the slighest inkling as to what it means. Quote
SF/PF Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) I object to Craig's argument re: "objective meaning" on the grounds that "shit-I-just-made-up-in-a-flight-of-fancy-with-no-evidence-for-at-all" is pretty much the definition of "subjective illusion." The suggestion that mere facts offer less "objective meaning" than faith in the supernatural beggars belief. Clearly, Craig finds more meaning in those beliefs than in the entropic heat death of the universe, but thats just an aesthetic preference and inherently subjective. But for the sake of argument, lets assume for the moment that everything Craig believes about God and faith and fellowship is true. In that case, the reality of God would simply be another fact of the universe, along the lines of the future entropic heat death of the universe. And thus a "subjective illusion," as he puts it. I think I can pretty fairly summarize Craig's argument thus: I like pie better than cake. Therefore, pie is objectively tastier than cake. Edited March 19, 2011 by SF/PF Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
betsy Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 (edited) I object to Craig's argument re: "objective meaning" on the grounds that "shit-I-just-made-up-in-a-flight-of-fancy-with-no-evidence-for-at-all" is pretty much the definition of "subjective illusion." The suggestion that mere facts offer less "objective meaning" than faith in the supernatural beggars belief. Clearly, Craig finds more meaning in those beliefs than in the entropic heat death of the universe, but thats just an aesthetic preference and inherently subjective. But for the sake of argument, lets assume for the moment that everything Craig believes about God and faith and fellowship is true. In that case, the reality of God would simply be another fact of the universe, along the lines of the future entropic heat death of the universe. And thus a "subjective illusion," as he puts it. I think I can pretty fairly summarize Craig's argument thus: And how did Hitchens rebutt? Anyway, that's your opinion. You're entitled to it. But I'm sure you'll understand why I'd rather listen to Craig. Edited March 19, 2011 by betsy Quote
SF/PF Posted March 19, 2011 Report Posted March 19, 2011 But I'm sure you'll understand why I'd rather listen to Craig. I can't honestly claim to understand that in the slightest. Quote Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -4.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.15
Shady Posted March 20, 2011 Report Posted March 20, 2011 Dawkins' not confident to square off with Craig. That's another reason they prefer people like Tony Blair. They can't seem to handle the heavyweights. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.