The Munk Debate on Religon

[betsy]

That's another reason they prefer people like Tony Blair. They can't seem to handle the heavyweights.

I have to confess that this is the first time I've seen Craig in action. I can't wait to see his debate with Dawkins.

Btw, here's one with Craig vs Peter Atkins. From what I've read on wiki about Atkins, he's allegedly so obnoxious.

Craig humiliates Dr Peter Atkins

http://vodpod.com/watch/2564810-youtube-dr-william-lane-craig-humiliates-dr-peter-atkins

[ToadBrother]

Hitches, yes. Dawkins, no. Dawkins is somewhat of a hack. However, Hitchens is great.

I don't see much difference. Their arguments seem equally infantile to me.

[bloodyminded]

Hitches, yes. Dawkins, no. Dawkins is somewhat of a hack. However, Hitchens is great.

Well, Hitchens is also an insufferable douchebag, and for several reasons.

But a sharp-as-hell intellect, no question. He just refuses, often, to make use of it, for reasons I can't quite understand.

Edited March 21, 2011 by bloodyminded

[GostHacked]

Can creationism be scientifically explained? And by that I mean, using science?

[cybercoma]

Craig v Hitchens:

On the purpose of life with or without God

Re Craig: "God is the fulfilment of human existence. Through God that existence is filled with goodness and love."

God is then moot. God is not a necessary condition for fulfilling human existence, nor for goodness and love. Non-believers can live a life of goodness and love, just as believers commit horrible atrocities, often using God as the reason. Where God is not a necessary condition for horrible atrocities, God is a sufficient one in many circumstances. The absence of God is never, on the other hand, the reason behind living a life without goodness and love. You rarely hear of movements involving mass murders and holocausts where the orchestrator says, "I am doing this because there is no God."

Re Craig: "For atheists, there is no objective purpose to human existence."

He means that there is no end (object to aspire to, goal, value) to human existence for atheists. However, I've addressed this before and I'll say it again. This life is the object of human existence. Some transcendent being's whims are not an end worth aspiring to. The purpose of human existence is to live happily and peacefully amongst one another with as little suffering as possible. Making this life, this time, here and now the best it can be is the end.

Re Craig: "there is no purpose for which the universe exists."

You're right. It just exists and eventually it won't. Not everything needs to have an end.

Re Hitchens: "If there is going to be this party in the afterlife, then why do the religious need to fight for so much power to legislate morality in there here and now?"

Brutal face-stomping. If this were a boxing match, the doctor would be calling the fight.

[betsy]

Re Hitchens: "If there is going to be this party in the afterlife, then why do the religious need to fight for so much power to legislate morality in there here and now?"

Brutal face-stomping. If this were a boxing match, the doctor would be calling the fight.

Isn't Hitchens wasting what precious time is left of this one-time chance at life....indulging in debates (that lead to nowhere) with religous folks? Eat, drink, be merry I say. Time's a-ticking!

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Isn't Hitchens wasting what precious time is left of this one-time chance at life....indulging in debates (that lead to nowhere) with religous folks? Eat, drink, be merry I say. Time's a-ticking!

If you don't consider your posts a waste of time, then Hitches is using his time very wisely.

[cybercoma]

Isn't Hitchens wasting what precious time is left of this one-time chance at life....indulging in debates (that lead to nowhere) with religous folks? Eat, drink, be merry I say. Time's a-ticking!

He has a life goal of showing people that they can be free from the type of control and brainwashing your ilk push upon the masses.

[betsy]

He has a life goal of showing people that they can be free from the type of control and brainwashing your ilk push upon the masses.

Religious people believe there is God. If religious people find solace and contentment believing there is life after death, why would he want to dash that belief? So badly enough that he makes it his life's goal?

What does he gain by that cruel act - keep in mind that he believes that once we're dead, we're dead - so what's his point?

Edited March 26, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Religious people believe there is God. If religious people find solace and contentment believing there is life after death, why would he want to dash that belief? So badly enough that he makes it his life's goal?

What does he gain by that cruel act - keep in mind that he believes that once we're dead, we're dead - so what's his point?

Live and let live. However it seems like the ones who believe in that the most are the ones who are violating it.

[Oleg Bach]

It would have been an intersting debate if it weren't for Tony Blair. He's completely unqualified to be part of this discussion.

Any guy that would butter up to George Bush and assist the idiot in being even more of an idiot is an idiot...I personally witnessed Sherry Blair speak at an event....ironic that she was into the human rights of children when she shared the same bed with a man who had no quams about creating collatoral damage consisting of old men - woman and children...YES Blair is NOT qualified...nor is any human or earth bright enough to debate the un-debateable.