Shrunk wrote:I suspect even more strongly now that this whole thing was a set up to make Lamoureax look good.

The thing that puzzled me about Lamoureux was that he didn't really say anything.

He didn't dispute any of the science, and indeed was arguing with Meyer at times. But then just added stuff about what he believed, without either defining what he meant (by 'the word of God', for instance), or saying why he believed it.

He seemed a pretty pointless addition to the group really.

I actually thought it was kind of interesting when he said that the discovery of evolution had been a disaster for Christianity and is one of the main reasons people are leaving the faith. In that sense, he and Meyer agree on the nature and scope of the problem, but disagree on the solution. Some of us, OTOH, don't see any problem at all.

I'm listening to the debate right now. I heard the first 30 minutes at this point. Krauss says a lot of good stuff regarding god and religion. I've heard some of his debates in the past, and I must agree that he's not a good debater. It's really too bad, since what he says is true.

Murmur wrote:I'm listening to the debate right now. I heard the first 30 minutes at this point. Krauss says a lot of good stuff regarding god and religion. I've heard some of his debates in the past, and I must agree that he's not a good debater. It's really too bad, since what he says is true.

Krauss knows his physics, without a doubt. And he's probably learned enough about other sciences to put up a decent fight against the average creotard, but that's about it. He debates like someone who has come to a fencing contest wielding a baseball bat. I suspect his approach is rather thuggish for those of a sensitive theistic disposition, so he's never going to be a skilled debater.

I like Krauss but I'm already in the atheist camp and I like the direct combative approach, whereas the more squeamish God botherers don't react well to it (they call Dawkins aggressive, for fuck's sake). For them, you probably need a softer and more subtle approach.

Lamoureux is an Anglican, I believe. That would explain why his concept of God is an amorphous goo that can be any shape, taste, colour or smell that fits the need of the day. It's easy to seem superficially "reasonable" when you don't actually take a firm position on anything.

Blackadder wrote: ...I like the direct combative approach, whereas the more squeamish God botherers don't react well to it (they call Dawkins aggressive, for fuck's sake). For them, you probably need a softer and more subtle approach.

Why? I don't see a softer and more subtle approach being anymore effective. I think the best approach is an honest one and whilst is likely to appear combative to the magical thinker, I don't see how tempering your language to accommodate their feelings (succumb to the special pleading) is likely to be more successful in getting people to examine their beliefs.

Quite simply, if someone doesn't like having their precious mythology questioned, it's tough. Especially when said mythology contains manifest contradictions and absurdities.

Briton wrote:

Blackadder wrote: ...I like the direct combative approach, whereas the more squeamish God botherers don't react well to it (they call Dawkins aggressive, for fuck's sake). For them, you probably need a softer and more subtle approach.

Why? I don't see a softer and more subtle approach being anymore effective. I think the best approach is an honest one and whilst is likely to appear combative to the magical thinker, I don't see how tempering you language to accommodate their feelings (succumb to the special pleading) is likely to be more successful in getting people to examine their beliefs.

As I said, I like the direct approach, but I know from my conversations with many theists that they are repelled by a direct head-on challenge to their beliefs, since their identities and egos are so bound up with their belief systems.

My remarks were in regards only to the format of a debate. Oratorial skills can outmanoeuvre facts in debates, which is why I think they are a useless way to discuss science. But if scientists must do them, then it pays to know how to use a carrot to lure the theists within range of the stick. That's all.

For me, Lamoureux clearly "won" the debate (in the sense of presenting a meaningfully structured and comprehensible presentation)

NineBerry wrote:For me, Lamoureux clearly "won" the debate (in the sense of presenting a meaningfully structured and comprehensible presentation)

The problem with that is that without the special pleading for the Bibles, cherry picking/quote mining of Darwin, and the old and tattered "atheists take a leap of faith too" assertion he didn't really say anything.

Basically what Lamoureux said was that he set out to prove the theory of evolution wrong because of his religious belief in a creator god as described in the Old Testament, but couldn't reinforce his delusion enough to get there. So, he retreated to a position where his personal creator god still gets to exist in his imagination, but somehow need not come into conflict with his rational mind.

Well, he was the one to make a good sound case for the reality of Evolution.