Recent High Profile Atheist Debates

[Fox_McCloud]

Hi everyone, I am new here.

I became a Christian in high school and it lasted until last year when I turned 28 and took a serious interest in science, which stemmed from my love of sci-fi.

A few months ago I became an Atheist (acceptance of Evolution being the most corroding force to my faith). I watched every single video of many of the new atheists, especially Dawkins, all of the debates, many books.

In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.

It could just be my naivety on the issues seeing that I only learned about all these arguments last year, but I cannot understand why people like hitchens and loftus are unable or avoid answering the claims that theists present for evidence of god, especially a specific god like the Christian one.

Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).

Both hitchens and loftus are unable to address this, but I do not see the cosmic origins argument as pointing towards a god necessarily. Dr Lawrence Krauss gives a seemingly plausible explanation of how the universe could come about through the big bang from what we portray as "nothing" in his video "a universe from nothing": (apparently i cannot post links until i make 10 posts)youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

More to the point the theist position depends on a presumption that actual nothing "exists". We have never observed nothingness, for even in blank space many sub atomic particles phase in and out of existence, its the basis of quantum mechanics. "Nothing" could just be a human made concept like infinity. We have no evidence that infinity exists in nature either.

Craig scores big points with the audience against Hitchens when he talked about Objective Morals, and how in the atheist world view we cant say anything is right or wrong. Hitchens tried several times to answer this but confused Craigs point and ended up wasting so much time fighting an issue that was never there. In my mind he should have simply said something of the following:

"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."

Craig goes on to say that the fact that Jesus was resurrected is evidence god exists, and he knows Jesus was resurrected because he claims it is the best explanation of why the disciples seen him at several different locations and that his tome was empty.

This argument was an appeal to ignorance and a mind with limited creativity. Hitchens should have smashed him on this point. For anything there is a near infinity number of possible explanations (good, bad or otherwise), maybe Jesus body was carried away, maybe it was never buried in the tome to begin with, maybe the body was there and through generations of hearsay they only said it wasnt, perhaps jesus never existed in the first place, but of all the explanations that can be chosen Craig chooses this: "The supreme power of the God of everything intervenes in creation and raises zombie jesus back to life, and allows him to go visit his disciples before floating up into the clouds where he will now reign for eternity". Craig claims THAT is the most sensible and reasonable conclusion from the base facts. I think Hitchens could have made the audience laugh over this point if pressed right.

I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians. I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.

[tackattack]

If you're looking for a debate there's plenty of them here, just jump in. People should always be in a state of self-assessment of their beliefs. I think you're under the assumption that there are no logical theists? Logic and religion are independant. If you're reaching out to your fellow athesits for understanding , I'd start with an introduction even though they're no longer required.

[LEDO]

The assumption of the theist argument is that Jesus was crucified and placed in a tomb. I would claim the passion play is a cosmic myth and has no basis in truth. In fact, on Easter morning you can see the passion of the Christ played out in the constellations right before sunrise.

[Purple Rabbit]

H Fox, welcome to AF.

I don't think it is relevant at all who the audience is in favor of in these debates. Humans should base opinion on critical thinking not on crowds.

Second, I think you've formulated things very well here:
"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."

It seems to me you have a talent for clear statement and done some critical thinking to come from christianity to this statement, so why worry about the public performance of others? Your stance is the one that matters to you. If the religious want to follow through on the path of fabulation they will follow through on the path of fabulation. Our job is not to show 'm the light.

[Tiberius]

In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.

People have bad debates and good debates. I've seen Hitchens slaughter more theists in debates that I've seen the other way around. Hopefully I'll be able to correct some of your views anyway. I should note that a formal written debate is very different from a live face-to-face debate. You are more likely to miss non-sequiturs and fallacies in a verbal debate because you are thinking on your feet. You are also more likely to get drawn into discussions that could have been dismissed (as per your morality example).

Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).

Ok, well there are some problems with Craig and D'souza's argument here. Firstly, the Big Bang doesn't show that the universe was not eternal. Far from it. The Big Bang only shows that at some point in the past, the universe began to expand rapidly. Whether it existed before that is still unknown. The current theory is that the universe existed as a singularity without space or time. If it had no time, then it literally wasn't created (since creation is an event, and for events to precede things, you need time).

I also dispute your reasoning that "scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing"...that sounds like Ray Comfort reasoning to me. Science and logic deal with the universe we are currently in; they cannot possibly deal with the environment that the universe is in, or the environment before the universe expanded. We know nothing about this environment, whether it had laws, whether it is bound by logic, etc.

Finally, the theistic position is no more reasonable than the atheist position. The atheist position isn't a claim of "no god" as you say, but a claim of "non-belief in God". Atheists do not deny the existence of God, they simply do not believe in them. Strong atheists would be the ones making the claim. Back to "reasonable" positions, the theistic one places a God, an infinitely complex being, into the mix, in order to apparently solve a problem which I've just explained doesn't have to exist in the first place (given the absence of time). Unfortunately, putting something unexplainable as an explanation only causes more questions. Thus, I say their position is far less reasonable.

"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."

Can I ask you a question? How often did you re-write that, pause for thought, change certain words, improve it, etc. You have the advantage of not having to think on your feet. In a heated debate, it is often hard to stay on point when you are facing challenges from your opponent.

I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians. I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.

People in live debates regularly lie to cover their points from criticism, and they get away with it because most of the time nobody checks. This is why I prefer written debates, and why I started this forum. You have as much time as you like to formulate a response, and you can fact-check things people say. Having double takes on your own beliefs is a good thing; never defend your beliefs because they are your beliefs; defend them because you believe they are correct. The search for truth should be the priority, and if you find the arguments of theists convincing, evaluate them yourself.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

edit,changed my mind

[Eilonnwy]

In recent high profile debates though, it seems like atheists are taking a beating from theists and it is more than a little disheartening to see the people I had recently come to see as the champions of reason and my new world view, performing so poorly. Examples being: William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens, and Dinesh D`souza vs John W Loftus.

I would disagree that atheists have been taken a beating. There was one instance where Hitchens debated 4 theists and did a wonderful job. I, myself, saw Hitchens debate last year in Connecticut and even got to speak with him face to face. Bow he's coming to my home state of Massachusetts in March, and I will once again see him in high form. Do I think Hitchens is on form for every debate with every question or response he answers? No. But I have yet to see anyone clean the floor with him.

It could just be my naivety on the issues seeing that I only learned about all these arguments last year, but I cannot understand why people like hitchens and loftus are unable or avoid answering the claims that theists present for evidence of god, especially a specific god like the Christian one.

I'm not familiar with Loftus, but I'm very familiar with Hitchens. Hitchens argue against God using a specific tactic. He is comes at the argument from the problem of evil argument and the evils of religion. He does not argue cosmological, universe beginning type arguments. That's not his specialty.

Both Craig and D`souza trounce the atheist with the cosmic origins argument. Essentially claiming that since science shows evidence of the big bang, the universe was not eternal and at some point was created. All matter and time itself began to exist. Also since scientifically and logically we know that something cannot come from nothing, the theist position is more reasonable then the atheist one that claims no god (essentially taking away the cause).

Atheists do not say something came from nothing. The Big bang only asserts there was a singularity that expanded. It says nothing about before that point because time is not relevant and it's impossible to really say anything about it. Not once do we say something came from nothing, so please do not mis-characterize atheism and cosmic origins that way, you only show your ignorance of the subject.

And let's take you down this rabbit hole of thought...if something always had to be there, why does it have to be a creator God that waved his magic hand and sent the universe on a long billion year journey just to get to us to then send his son down as a blood sacrifice two thousand years ago? Couldn't the universe just always have existed? Why do you have to claim the universe had to start from something and ignore that law you've thrust on the universe and then ignore it when it comes to God?

Both hitchens and loftus are unable to address this, but I do not see the cosmic origins argument as pointing towards a god necessarily. Dr Lawrence Krauss gives a seemingly plausible explanation of how the universe could come about through the big bang from what we portray as "nothing" in his video "a universe from nothing": (apparently i cannot post links until i make 10 posts)youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

More to the point the theist position depends on a presumption that actual nothing "exists". We have never observed nothingness, for even in blank space many sub atomic particles phase in and out of existence, its the basis of quantum mechanics. "Nothing" could just be a human made concept like infinity. We have no evidence that infinity exists in nature either.

Read Victor Stenger, he addresses the "something came from nothing" argument in God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Craig scores big points with the audience against Hitchens when he talked about Objective Morals, and how in the atheist world view we cant say anything is right or wrong. Hitchens tried several times to answer this but confused Craigs point and ended up wasting so much time fighting an issue that was never there. In my mind he should have simply said something of the following:

"Your absolutely right, objective morals do not exist, they are a biproduct of evolution of a social species. In order for our species to survive, it was advantageous for us to form a social structure and in doing so morals came about for everyones benefit. This does mean that rape, phedophilia, murder, etc.. is not wrong because its wrong, as there is not absolute right and wrong, there is only our subjective social structures view, and we agree as a people to avoid things that are destructive to our society and punish those who permit undesirable deeds. What it comes down to is: reality is the way it is, wether we like it or not, and that fact is certainly not self refuting."

Adrian's point is spot on. It's easy to come up with a perfect response when you have time to think about what you're going to say.

Also, without seeing the Video, I have no way of verifying if your portrayal of Hitchens is fairly accurate.

Craig goes on to say that the fact that Jesus was resurrected is evidence god exists, and he knows Jesus was resurrected because he claims it is the best explanation of why the disciples seen him at several different locations and that his tome was empty.

This argument was an appeal to ignorance and a mind with limited creativity. Hitchens should have smashed him on this point. For anything there is a near infinity number of possible explanations (good, bad or otherwise), maybe Jesus body was carried away, maybe it was never buried in the tome to begin with, maybe the body was there and through generations of hearsay they only said it wasnt, perhaps jesus never existed in the first place, but of all the explanations that can be chosen Craig chooses this: "The supreme power of the God of everything intervenes in creation and raises zombie jesus back to life, and allows him to go visit his disciples before floating up into the clouds where he will now reign for eternity". Craig claims THAT is the most sensible and reasonable conclusion from the base facts. I think Hitchens could have made the audience laugh over this point if pressed right.

Once again, Hitchens has a very specific method of debating. He doesn't tend to argue that Jesus should not have existed, but he more often takes the route of arguing that God is a proposition of a dictatorship that he rejects as immoral.

And once again, no one person is going to perfectly respond to every point in a debate. I have listened to a lot of off the cuff debate, and believe me, Hitchens is one of the best debators for what he does.

I guess I am just a little disappointed, I learned atheism from these guys, and they are getting torn apart by theists. I figured that as an atheist I had the clearly more logical, and reasonable, sensible position, and when explained properly, it would be very obvious to others. Yet from these debates, atheists actually became christians.

Proof, please? Have you seen one actual person claim they were an atheist and now are a Christian? Honestly, in most debates very few are swayed. I watch them more for the entertainment value.

I have not seen this specific debate, but I have seen others where I was very satisfied with Hitchens's performance, including the one I saw in person.

Here's the 4 on 1 that I mentioned. 4 against 1 and I think Hitchens did an excellent job.
http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/04/05/hi...ans-video/

I cannot say that it doesn't make me do a double take on my own beliefs.

If you convictions hinge on the outcome of a single debate, then I think they need to be made of stronger stuff. There is so much more information on the subject of God that a debate can only scratch the surface. Your beliefs really shouldn't be contingent on the debate performance of a single atheist.

Hear something in a debate that scratches your head and your guy didn't answer sufficiently, look it up!

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page <--- Great resource to counter-apologetics.

[jlowder]

Please forgive the shameless self-promotion, but I'd like to throw out a mention of my debate with Phil Fernandes.

[ElDinero]

Wow. That is quite shameless. Could, like, say 'hello' first.

[frankiej]

Yeah.... I'm surprised at how shameless that was... What a c***.....cunt.....