Dawkins and Craig debate!

Aca · **#21** by **Aca** » Nov 22, 2010 9:42 am

full debate, 1h43min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

katja z · **#22** by **katja z** » Nov 22, 2010 1:16 pm

Aca wrote:full debate, 1h43min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

Good catch, thanks! :cheers:

MattHunX · **#23** by **MattHunX** » Nov 22, 2010 3:10 pm

katja z wrote:
Aca wrote:full debate, 1h43min

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

Good catch, thanks!

Thanks indeed. YouTube is either messed up these days, or they delete the videos or they get deleted for some infringement.

Shrunk · **#24** by **Shrunk** » Nov 22, 2010 3:14 pm

Animavore wrote:i thought dawkins was never going to debate wlc.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/nonth ... ig#p582094

borealis · **#25** by **borealis** » Nov 22, 2010 3:18 pm

Bookmarking.

Bud's Brain · **#26** by **Bud's Brain** » Nov 22, 2010 6:08 pm

I just can't see RD being so blatantly rude. Dismissive, yes, but it's just not subtle enough. WLC's version of the 'conversation', I'm sure. And he comes out smelling like a good christian, making friends with enemies etc.

BB

Shrunk · **#27** by **Shrunk** » Nov 22, 2010 6:21 pm

Bud's Brain wrote:I just can't see RD being so blatantly rude. Dismissive, yes, but it's just not subtle enough. WLC's version of the 'conversation', I'm sure. And he comes out smelling like a good christian, making friends with enemies etc.

I'm not actually sure that Dawkins knows any more about Craig than his article advocating genocide if it's commanded by God. It's certainly the only thing I've seen Dawkins actually acknowledge. In light of that, I think Dawkins' response, if as reported, is understandable. Come to think about it, I'm not sure how to justify any other response.

borealis · **#28** by **borealis** » Nov 22, 2010 7:16 pm

Craig's smile gives me really bad shivers. :no:

Funny thing by the way, all theists seem to agree, that if God exists, then universe has a purpose.
I thought that christians believe, that after they die, they spend eternity in heaven. Then what? Nothing. They just float in heaven forever. What sort of purpose is that? :scratch:

The Plc · **#29** by **The Plc** » Nov 22, 2010 10:33 pm

Shrunk wrote:
Bud's Brain wrote:I just can't see RD being so blatantly rude. Dismissive, yes, but it's just not subtle enough. WLC's version of the 'conversation', I'm sure. And he comes out smelling like a good christian, making friends with enemies etc.

I'm not actually sure that Dawkins knows any more about Craig than his article advocating genocide if it's commanded by God. It's certainly the only thing I've seen Dawkins actually acknowledge. In light of that, I think Dawkins' response, if as reported, is understandable. Come to think about it, I'm not sure how to justify any other response.

Someone also put a video of Craig slandering Dawkins through a wilful misreading of Dawkins' view that religious labeling and indoctrination of children should count as a form of child abuse. Craig claimed that if people like Dawkins ever came to politcal power they would advocate taking children away from their families and have them raised by the state in athiest foster homes, which is nothing that Dawkins even remotely suggested. Dawkins posted that he considered it libel, but nothing further.

I'm sure he's not ignorant of who Craig is and what he's about, as he and his apologetics gets brought up now and again on his website discussion forums. His pithy answer to the Kalam cosmological argument as put by Craig was 'You forgot step four, hence Jesus died for our sins and regularly turns into a cracker'.

Shrunk · **#30** by **Shrunk** » Nov 23, 2010 2:17 am

The Plc wrote:His pithy answer to the Kalam cosmological argument as put by Craig was 'You forgot step four, hence Jesus died for our sins and regularly turns into a cracker'.

Xaihe · **#31** by **Xaihe** » Nov 23, 2010 4:53 am

When Craig started talking (around 1 hour 14 minutes) about atheists' make belief and illusion of purpose, my irony meter exploded :lol:

.

Arcanyn · **#32** by **Arcanyn** » Nov 23, 2010 6:46 am

borealis wrote:Craig's smile gives me really bad shivers.

Funny thing by the way, all theists seem to agree, that if God exists, then universe has a purpose.
I thought that christians believe, that after they die, they spend eternity in heaven. Then what? Nothing. They just float in heaven forever. What sort of purpose is that?

The purpose is much more sinister than that. The purpose, according to Christianity, is for humans to exist solely as a means to an end, to be useful to another being. What desires, aims, and interests we have are irrelevant. Our lives have purpose for the same reason a hammer has a purpose - because some other entity finds it to be useful. The viewpoint put forth by Craig is that the only way our lives can have meaning is if we exist to be used, and that we have no value in and of ourselves. Thus, there can be no purpose in atheism, because we weren't created for the benefit of somebody else, and there's no big powerful being going around exploiting us.

tnjrp · **#33** by **tnjrp** » Nov 23, 2010 7:17 am

We are born for a darker purpose than that of mere existence
~ Adept Corteswain, Warhammer 40.000 Necron Codex

THWOTH · **#34** by **THWOTH** » Nov 23, 2010 8:23 pm

trubble76 wrote:Is David Icke going?

And is Craig going to weasel out of debating him if he is?

Peter Brown · **#35** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 23, 2010 9:52 pm

The religious used the Chewbacca Defense in this debate.

Rumraket · **#36** by **Rumraket** » Nov 23, 2010 10:05 pm

Peter Brown wrote:The religious used the Chewbacca Defense in this debate.

The Chewbacca Defense...
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate :popcorn:

Think Floyd · **#37** by **Think Floyd** » Nov 23, 2010 10:18 pm

MattHunX wrote:The only "over-zealous" speaker I've heard, and keep hearing with pleasure, on the atheistic/scientific side is Neil deGrasse Tyson. But, unlike the theists, in their fervor, who don't actually say anything worthwhile, not to someone who relies on reason, Tyson and Co. are simply passionate about something that IS, something that exists, and not something they (desperately) wish would exist.

You can tell that Tyson absolutely loves his work, he has such astounding passion for it.

THWOTH · **#38** by **THWOTH** » Nov 23, 2010 10:18 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:The religious used the Chewbacca Defense in this debate.

The Chewbacca Defense...
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate

"Look at the monkey, look at the silly monkey..."

Matt_B · **#39** by **Matt_B** » Nov 23, 2010 10:19 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:The religious used the Chewbacca Defense in this debate.

The Chewbacca Defense...
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate

It's not as exciting as it sounds. Basically, you just spout a load of nonsense about Chewbacca (or something equally irrelevant to the discussion) and end with an appeal that it supports your argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Peter Brown · **#40** by **Peter Brown** » Nov 23, 2010 10:21 pm

Rumraket wrote:
Peter Brown wrote:The religious used the Chewbacca Defense in this debate.

The Chewbacca Defense...
I'm intrigued. Please elaborate

Cochran
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense

Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Richard Dawkins Vs. William Lane Craig

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Re: Dawkins and Craig debate!

Who is online