Video debates and Interviews

[Saipan]

cybercoma:

Seems ridiculous doesn't it, believing in something that couldn't possibly be real.

That is how machines heavier than air were defined. On scientific grounds of course.

Then we have the whole Universe popping out of infinitely small dot

[cybercoma]

At least the sect Pastafaria came out lately. Complete with the religious pasta-drainer cap!

Right up there with Christianity and the son of God rising from the dead crap!

[Saipan]

Do you believe a man can levitate?

[dre]

What's the fear? We have "futurists" who dream of contacting and communicating with other intelligences of the universe. Yet unable to communicate with different view right here on this planet

There is no fear. Im trying to explain why these threads degenerate into abject uselessness so fast, and why most scientists avoid debating this with people of faith.

[Bonam]

Do you believe a man can levitate?

Why not?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWTSzBWEsms

[Saipan]

There is no fear. Im trying to explain why these threads degenerate into abject uselessness so fast, and why most scientists avoid debating this with people of faith.

Pretty poor excuse.

Back to what I said.

Edited August 18, 2011 by Saipan

[Saipan]

Why not?

Where is the levitating man?

[GostHacked]

Exactly. Just like talking to some of you here, who go on and on and on.... in circular mode.

Et tu Betsy?

[Saipan]

Criss Angel Building Levitation REVEALED!!!

[betsy]

Why Is Richard Dawkins So Popular?

Dr. William Lane Craig

[betsy]

Well, it's no longer a mystery why Dawkins wouldn't go on a one-on-one with William Craig. Richard Dawkins had a preview of how Craig is gonna get him. You'd think that at least, knowing Craig's argument in advance would give Dawkins enough time to come up with an effective rebutt. Obviously, there's no available rebutt! Except to high-tail it!

"What do you think of Richard Dawkins' argument for atheism in The God Delusion?"

Dr. Craig responds:

On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes what he calls "the central argument of my book." It goes as follows:

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.

4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

5. We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.

6. We should not give up the hope of a better explanation arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist.

This argument is jarring because the atheistic conclusion that "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" seems to come suddenly out of left field. You don't need to be a philosopher to realize that that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements.

Indeed, if we take these six statements as premises of an argument implying the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist," then the argument is patently invalid. No logical rules of inference would permit you to draw this conclusion from the six premises.

A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. But even on this charitable construal, the conclusion "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist" does not follow from these six steps, even if we concede that each of them is true and justified.

The point is that rejecting design arguments for God's existence does nothing to prove that God does not exist or even that belief in God is unjustified. Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.

So Dawkins' argument for atheism is a failure even if we concede, for the sake of argument, all its steps. But, in fact, several of these steps are plausibly false. Take just step (3), for example. Dawkins' claim here is that one is not justified in inferring design as the best explanation of the complex order of the universe because then a new problem arises: who designed the designer?

This rejoinder is flawed on at least two counts. First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from. Similarly, if astronauts were to come upon a pile of machinery on the back side of the moon, they would be justified in inferring that it was the product of intelligent, extra-terrestrial agents, even if they had no idea whatsoever who these extra-terrestrial agents were or how they got there. In order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't be able to explain the explanation. In fact, so requiring would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, so that nothing could ever be explained and science would be destroyed. So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.

Secondly....

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

William Lane Craig responds to Richard Dawkins' "central" argument, and the problem of "who designed the designer".

Edited August 21, 2011 by betsy

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I read through this thread.

I can only conclude that betsy is being willfully ignorant.

No discussion can change willful ignorance.

Have a good day.

[betsy]

I read through this thread.

I can only conclude that betsy is being willfully ignorant.

No discussion can change willful ignorance.

Have a good day.

Have a good day.

[betsy]

'I can't be sure God DOES NOT exist'

World's most notorious atheist Richard Dawkins admits he is in fact agnostic

By Suzannah Hills

UPDATED: 14:45 GMT, 24 February 2012

Professor Richard Dawkins today dismissed his hard-earned reputation as a militant atheist - admitting that he is actually agnostic as he can't prove God doesn't exist.

The country's foremost champion of the Darwinist evolution, who wrote The God Delusion, stunned audience members when he made the confession during a lively debate on the origins of the universe with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

But when Archbishop Dr Rowan Williams suggested that Professor Darwin is often described as the world's most famous atheist, the geneticist responded: 'Not by me'.

More...

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1vFO9iBij

A rare display of logic! I guess secularist militants - I think that's the new buzz word for the New Atheists (?) - will have to find another champion.

[kimmy]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2105834/Career-atheist-Richard-Dawkins-admits-fact-agnostic.html#ixzz1vFO9iBij

A rare display of logic! I guess secularist militants - I think that's the new buzz word for the New Atheists (?) - will have to find another champion.

I doubt that Dawkins will stop doing any of the things that have earned him such dislike from people like yourself, betsy. He'll remain an outspoken opponent of religion, whether people you wish to call him an atheist or an agnostic. His message will be the same and he will keep pushing it.

Few people who call themselves atheists would be willing to state with absolute certainty that no god exists. For the same reason that few people would be willing to state with absolute certainty that no unicorns exist: it's unprovable. To interpret that as some kind of rhetorical victory for Team Jesus is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument.

Question: "Can you prove that unicorns don't exist?"

Answer: "No, I can't prove it."

Headline: "Dawkins open-minded on existence of unicorns!!"

"Agnostic" isn't a position in the middle between atheism and theism. It's not a belief that each position is equally valid. It's the opposite of "gnostic". "Gnostic" = we can be certain. "Agnostic" = we can't know.

"Atheist" is the opposite of "theist". "Theist" = belief in the existence of god or gods. "Atheist" = disbelief in the existence of gods.

"Gnostic" and "agnostic" are adjectives that can describe a theist or atheist. Most atheists would consider themselves "agnostic atheists", meaning they don't believe in a god but don't believe it can be proven one way or the other. Dawkins, like almost every other atheist, is an agnostic atheist.

On the other hand, most theists, it seems to me, would be considered "gnostic theists", meaning they believe they know for certain that their god is real. It seems to me that logically speaking, the onus is on the person making the affirmative claim.

And the label "militant secularists" is hilarious. I think people have a serious lack of perspective on what "militant" actually means.

Militant Christians shoot people at abortion clinics.

Militant Muslims strap bombs to their chests or fly planes into buildings.

Militant atheists put up billboards and criticize religion on the internet.

-k

[bleeding heart]

On the other hand, most theists, it seems to me, would be considered "gnostic theists", meaning they believe they know for certain that their god is real. It seems to me that logically speaking, the onus is on the person making the affirmative claim.

Exactly. This was Bertrand Russell's argument:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

(Just incidentally, I love the little bit of throwaway humour in the introduction: "Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place......)

Militant Christians shoot people at abortion clinics.

Militant Muslims strap bombs to their chests or fly planes into buildings.

Militant atheists put up billboards and criticize religion on the internet.

They're all about the same, yeah.

Edited May 19, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

I doubt that Dawkins will stop doing any of the things that have earned him such dislike from people like yourself, betsy. He'll remain an outspoken opponent of religion, whether people you wish to call him an atheist or an agnostic. His message will be the same and he will keep pushing it.

His message may be the same....but the impact won't be anymore.

This is the same guy who was gloating with scorn and contempt when he said:

"I am confident no Flying Spaghetti Monster exists. Why should the notion of some deity that we inherited from the Bronze Age get more respectful treatment?"

Let's face it. It's that kind of hardhitting insults to religion that made him the darling of atheists.

And now he's saying, "I can't be sure God does not exist."

Hard to be in an arrogant insult-spouting mode when you've got a chink in your armour....when your faith in a no-god is propped on shaky legs.

Few people who call themselves atheists would be willing to state with absolute certainty that no god exists. For the same reason that few people would be willing to state with absolute certainty that no unicorns exist: it's unprovable. To interpret that as some kind of rhetorical victory for Team Jesus is a silly and intellectually dishonest argument.

But he's not your everyday atheist. A lot of atheists are normal people, confident in their position and are not rattled by religious folks spouting off about salvation and God. They're sure of their position. Snug in their atheistic belief. And one can't help but respect them for it - same way they respect your belief.

Not exactly victory for the team Jesus. Boy, it's gonna be like pulling teeth with Dawkins. But at least, looks like he's starting to come around even though it's so excruciatingly slow. Mind you, with his stature in the atheist community it must be tough for him to admit to a change in belief - for he could lose a lot by doing so.

No, it's not victory for Team Jesus. The only time it will be victory is when he accepts Him as his Saviour.

"Agnostic" isn't a position in the middle between atheism and theism. It's not a belief that each position is equally valid. It's the opposite of "gnostic". "Gnostic" = we can be certain. "Agnostic" = we can't know.

"Atheist" is the opposite of "theist". "Theist" = belief in the existence of god or gods. "Atheist" = disbelief in the existence of gods.

"Gnostic" and "agnostic" are adjectives that can describe a theist or atheist. Most atheists would consider themselves "agnostic atheists", meaning they don't believe in a god but don't believe it can be proven one way or the other. Dawkins, like almost every other atheist, is an agnostic atheist.

Let's not make it sound too complicated. An agnostic is a skeptic. By admitting he is not sure that God doesn't exists....means that. A possibility that He does exists, and possibility that He may not. Percentage of how much he believe don't mean squat.

He raised the possibility of God's existence.

Why did he have to admit to such a statement anyway? It's not like he's lying on the rack when he admitted to that!

And the label "militant secularists" is hilarious. I think people have a serious lack of perspective on what "militant" actually means.

Militant Christians shoot people at abortion clinics.

Militant Muslims strap bombs to their chests or fly planes into buildings.

Militant atheists put up billboards and criticize religion on the internet.

Oh yes I agree with you. They're as looney as militant secularists who advocate tearing up helpless babies inside their mother's womb - hiding behind the banner of women's right when perhaps the most motivating factor that they do so is simply the fact that they see baby-killing as a religion issue, and not human rights.

Edited May 20, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

So, Dawkins did not show up for the debate with William Lane Craig. I can only speculate, but perhaps he knew he couldn't go face Craig as the same champion of atheism, perhaps he'd acknowledged he's no longer confident as an atheist (not when he'd admitted to the possibility of God's existence).

Whatever the real reason why he refused to face Craig, it must've been quite a let-down for some of his followers, or those who wished to be enlightened through a face-off between two heavies....like the author of this article.

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG (not vs) RICHARD DAWKINS SAGA

Many of you know already that I spent a large part of 2011 launching a series of youtube commentaries against Richard Dawkins, for refusing to debate William Lane Craig (and specifically, the inconsistent and disingenuous way he went about it). I have decided to archive them all on this page, so you can access them easily and grasp a greater sense of the narrative that ran through them. I loved creating them, though plenty of frustrations and upsets were entailed in the process!

In fact, this brings me to perhaps my most important point: though it may appear otherwise (drumroll...) this wasn't all I was doing with 2011! Granted, it took up a lot of it, but I must assure you 2011 must have been the most important year of my life, for all sorts of different reasons - not all of them to be found in the pages of youtube!

But it is this importance I've recently been needing to face. I came out of William Lane Craig's UK Reasonable Faith Tour as a Christian again. This time, to stay. For good! This May, I will be baptised, submerged in commitment to Christ, and will be giving my testimony to how this happened. The tricky part is writing the testimony, and making sense of what I was up to - thinking, feeling, doing - over these last four years. There is a lot to confront and a lot to untangle, and it'll take a bit of time to get a clear story out of it.

more....

http://aatheism.blogspot.ca/2012/03/william-lane-craig-vs-not-richard.html

Edited May 20, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Let's not make it sound too complicated. An agnostic is a skeptic. By admitting he is not sure that God doesn't exists....means that. A possibility that He does exists, and possibility that He may not. Percentage of how much he believe don't mean squat.

I disagree. It's extremely important.

For example, let's say for the sake of argument that you overall prefer the Conservatives to the NDP.

That doesn't mean you consider both to be equally good for Canada. (You might, but you probably don't...and few interested people consider these two possibilities to be mathematically equal.)

That is, you might recognize the possibility that the NDP is as good as the Conservatives...but you feel confident that voting Conservative is a wiser choice.

That's being agnostic to the possibility of an awesome NDP Party...not some bland, meaningless exercise in "balance," in which "all things are equally possible."

And mine is a flawed analogy, because we're talking objectively existing agents, not total faith in something that isn't proven to exist at all. That is, my analogy is too generous.

I am an atheist. I am also an agnostic.

Because to me, the possibility that God as you know Him exists is no different, at all, from the possibility of Zeus and Hera bickering on Mount Olympus. I can't prove they don't exist...so I'm an agnostic.

So are you, actually.

But for all intents and purposes, it amounts to atheism, in my book.

Oh yes I agree with you. They're as looney as militant secularists who advocate tearing up helpless babies inside their mother's womb - hiding behind the banner of women's right when perhaps the most motivating factor that they do so is simply the fact that they see it as a religion issue, and not human rights.

No. It is all about women's rights, 100%; they're not "hiding behind the banner" of anything.

Edited May 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

I disagree. It's extremely important.

For example, let's say for the sake of argument that you overall prefer the Conservatives to the NDP.

That doesn't mean you consider both to be equally good for Canada. (You might, but you probably don't...and few interested people consider these two possibilities to be mathematically equal.)

That is, you might recognize the possibility that the NDP is as good as the Conservatives...but you feel confident that voting Conservative is a wiser choice.

That's being agnostic to the possibility of an awesome NDP Party...not some bland, meaningless exercise in "balance," in which "all things are equally possible."

And mine is a flawed analogy, because we're talking objectively existing agents, not total faith in something that isn't proven to exist at all. That is, my analogy is too generous.

Yes it is not a good analogy.

I am an atheist. I am also an agnostic.

When are you an atheist? When are you an agnostic?

Isn't that a good example of relativism?

Could it be you still haven't found your true self - which category you truly belong?

Psychologist perhaps will say you're vocalizing your inner turmoil - and perhaps Dawkins is also in the same situation now?

Even if you say you're only 1% agnostic and 90% atheist. That 1% makes you a skeptic.

That 1% counts. The Occupy Movement will agree with me....and I'm sure so will the NDP - especially the NDP -and the Liberals.

Because to me, the possibility that God as you know Him exists is no different, at all, from the possibility of Zeus and Hera bickering on Mount Olympus. I can't prove they don't exist...so I'm an agnostic.

Whether it is Zeus or the unicorn or the spaghetti monster....it's still the same logic.

So are you, actually.

So am I what? Agnostic like you? I hope you're not seriously thinking that. You don't want another lecture on faith.

But for all intents and purposes, it amounts to atheism, in my book.

I tend to agree with you on that. In your book. Because you think it suits your argument....at the moment.

No. It is all about women's rights, 100%; they're not "hiding behind the banner" of anything.

Well I think for militant secularists, it is about religion!

Their loudest defense why we should keep on butchering helpless babies, is that because the religious groups say it is wrong!

Edited May 20, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Yes it is not a good analogy.

It's flawed. But is suggests that what we "know" can be beset with slight contradictions.

When are you an atheist? When are you an agnostic?

Continually, and continually.

Isn't that a good example of relativism?

No.

Could it be you still haven't found your true self - which category you truly belong?

On the contrary; and you're being arrogant.

Psychologist perhaps will say you're vocalizing your inner turmoil - and perhaps Dawkins is also in the same situation now?

There is no inner turmoil. I can't speak for Dawkins, who is not at all important to me in any way.

Whether it is Zeus or the unicorn or the spaghetti monster....it's still the same logic.

Yes. Exactly the same, I agree. Belief in the Christian God, or Zeus, or the Spaghetti monster, or Allah....is precisely the same logic.

And I can't prove that any of them do not exist.

That does not make it "equally likely" that they do.

So am I what? Agnostic like you? I hope you're not saying that.

Yes, I am. you are agnostic, and/or an atheist, about every single religious faith ever conceived. Give or take one.

I tend to agree with you on that. In your book. Because you think it suits your argument....at the moment.

My argument is suited to reason and rationality.

Well I think for militant secularists, it is about religion!

You're mistaken.

Their loudest defense why we should keep on butchering helpless,is that because the religious groups say it is wrong!

No it isn't; it is never their defense.

Cite some, Betsy. If it's "[t]heir loudest defense" for abortion, you can find plenty of explicit examples. I ask only for two.

Edited May 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

No it isn't; it is never their defense.

Cite some, Betsy. If it's "[t]heir loudest defense" for abortion, you can find plenty of explicit examples. I ask only for two.

Some of the rebutts used in forums by militant secularists cite the influence of religion why the fetus is viewed as a human.

Along with the Gates Foundation, organizations like UNFPA blame religious beliefs and contraception’s association with population control for creating a situation in which over 215 million women in the developing world experience what they call an “unmet need” for contraception. They define “unmet need” as “women and men who say they want no more children or want to delay their next birth by more than two years, but are not practicing contraception.”

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/20/melinda-gates-promotes-abortion-at-mtg-attacks-catholics/

But being a 'militant secularist' – that is wanting to halt the stride of reactionary religion into public affairs – is not a negative thing. The fact that it is portrayed as such by the religious leaders who so desire the power to control everything simply reinforces its legitimacy. By opposing religious privilege and excess we are defending the rights of those who do not share the views of those religions. For every privilege granted to a particular religion, other religions, and people without religion, suffer discrimination.

So, militant secularism is not something to be booed, but to be cheered. It defends the rights of all, not just the rights of some.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2012/03/why-militant-secularism-is-for-believers-too1

Rights of all???? Gimme a break.

Yep. To militant secularists, everyone and everything had a right to exist. They fight for all these....except for the human baby.

Human rights these. Human rights that. Yet they choose to be blind about the baby's human rights.

reactionary religion into public affairs – is not a negative thing. The fact that it is portrayed as such by the religious leaders who so desire the power to control everything simply reinforces its legitimacy. By opposing religious privilege and excess we are defending the rights of those who do not share the views of those religions.

In this case, baby-killing.

Edited May 20, 2012 by betsy

[bleeding heart]

Some of the rebutts used in forums by militant secularists cite the influence of religion why the fetus is viewed as a human.

Rights of all???? Gimme a break.

In this case, baby-killing.

But you haven't offered a rebuttal. The reason people support a woman's right to choose is not because they are opposed to religion.

Some religious folks need to drop their massive and conspiratorial victim complex.

Edited May 20, 2012 by bleeding heart

[betsy]

But you haven't offered a rebuttal. The reason people support a woman's right to choose is not because they are opposed to religion.

Some religious folks need to drop their massive and conspiratorial victim complex.

Yes I did. You deleted them!

[bleeding heart]

Yes I did. You deleted them!

No, I didn't delete them...when I quote you, only your own words are left in the quote box.

This is not my fault, I assure you.

And have you never noticed this function before?

And no, you did not cite anyone who said that the reason they supported a woman's right to choose was to oppose abortion.

They are opposed to those of the religious right who oppose abortion...because they oppose abortion. Not because they're religious.

Nothing you posted disputes that pretty obvious and uncontroversial truth.

You are wallowing in a conspiracy theory undergirded by that victim complex that Kimmy has so astutely written about.

Edited May 20, 2012 by bleeding heart