(April 4, 2013 at 7:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, so you are saying there is evidence for God's existence?

No, but there is a theistic delusion of there being evidence.

(April 4, 2013 at 7:01 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Wait, so you are saying there is evidence for God's existence?

LOL, no, just mentioning that you used to be very fond of claiming that there was - which is what I found odd about your statement. Have you suffered a change of faith? Bowing before a different brand?

(April 4, 2013 at 7:05 pm)Mr Infidel Wrote: No, but there is a theistic delusion of there being evidence.

That’s very interesting; scripture says that you have an atheistic delusion that there is no evidence. How do you know you’re right and it’s not right?

(April 4, 2013 at 7:06 pm)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, no, just mentioning that you used to be very fond of claiming that there was - which is what I found odd about your statement. Have you suffered a change of faith? Bowing before a different brand?

No change of heart, the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming. I am just sophisticated enough to realize that evidence by itself is worthless; it requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted. I also know that the naturalist has begun with a conceptual scheme that rules out all evidence for God’s existence a priori; so it’s absurd for an atheist to be asking for evidence that proves God exists because he’s or she’s already ruled the possibility of it out. Rather than tossing loads of evidence onto the table that both sides interpret completely differently, it’s better to point to whose conceptual scheme is even logically defensible, consistent, and coherent- and the anti-Christian one is certainly not.

(April 4, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: That’s very interesting; scripture says that you have an atheistic delusion that there is no evidence. How do you know you’re right and it’s not right?

Because it is scripture.

(April 4, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No change of heart, the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming. I am just sophisticated enough to realize that evidence by itself is worthless; it requires a conceptual scheme in order to be interpreted. I also know that the naturalist has begun with a conceptual scheme that rules out all evidence for God’s existence a priori; so it’s absurd for an atheist to be asking for evidence that proves God exists because he’s or she’s already ruled the possibility of it out. Rather than tossing loads of evidence onto the table that both sides interpret completely differently, it’s better to point to whose conceptual scheme is even logically defensible, consistent, and coherent- and the anti-Christian one is certainly not.

Well, since it's overwhelming, I'm sure we'll be regaled by tales of it again at some point or another - which is always something I enjoy. I had run out of people to ask for evidence from for awhile there. It's true that I've ruled out the existence of your god, and any other god anyone has ever deigned to wax on about - but I'm always ready to be wrong. Please, feel free to toss loads of evidence on the table - or any evidence at all.

(April 3, 2013 at 5:53 pm)Rhythm Wrote: -Sir, you are wrong, our one clear and common goal should be to serve and worship our creator.
egment of the audience erupts in cheer - game, set, match:

Let me ask you this, is that a compelling point for you? I know it isn't for me, and it wasn't much more compelling even when I was a Christian. And a number of Christians I have associations with find it equally non-compelling.

There is nothing appealing about eternal and obligatory servitude.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm not sure what your objection is exactly, since what I said to start with is that Dawkins will debate Christians but not Creationists.

Christians are creationists.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 7:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Dawkins is a biologist. Craig is a fucking asshole. They have no common ground to debate.

The fact that they have no common ground is the most compellng reason to debate.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 7:34 pm)Tonus Wrote: I don't see why we'd want to use public debates to settle such issues. Let science and reason continue their inexorable march forward. Bread and circuses don't really work, IMO. Science does. Reason does.

You are correct that science and progress are the best tools of persuasion.

They aren't the ony ones though.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 9:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I agree, although that just furthers my point that this thread is based on an inaccurate principle anyway. I don't think Dawkins is a great debater. Who cares though, debate is so overrated as a method for establishing truth. Truth is truth, not who is the best at presenting their ideas.

Debate is not overrated. Debate is the source of many social, political, and legal developments in society.

That's why we need an effective approach to dealing with religious fanatics in debate.

---

(April 3, 2013 at 11:24 pm)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: The thing about Dawkin's not debating Craig was because Dawkins mistakenly thought he was a creationist. Or so I heard.

Craig is a creationist. But that isn't why Dawkins refused to debate him. In addition to Dawkins many objections to validating certain religious views by engaging in public debate, Dawkins also finds Craig to be a dispicable individual.

However, I don't think you have to like someone, or feel their views are credible, in order to justify debating them.

---

(April 4, 2013 at 5:02 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I always think that the problem lies in the fact some of the times the person in the atheist corner is often a scientist or specialist in some way and is usually (not in a bad way) a bit of a geek, and not always very good in expressing their opinions in a crowd pleasing way.
Where as the christians and muslims seem to have guys who their ONLY talent is being crowd pleasing.

Take for example Hamza tzortzis he takes on Richard Dawkins (a biologist) in an argument on biology and loses, PZ myers in an argument on embyology and loses, he debates Lawrence Kraus (this guy is so geeky he actually looks like a grown up version of Millhouse from the simpsons) and I don't know if he loses or wins the argument was so complicated. But in every instance the opinion of Muslims and probably of a few neutral people will be that Hamza won just because he was relaxed and told a few jokes, gelled his hair back to look like the fonz and did an impressive smile.

The situation is basically you get a guy who's been locked in a room all his life studying fossils and animals vs a guy who trains everyday studying his body language and tone and how to please crowds and the timing of his jokes, and the people who get to decide who wins the argument are a crowd of a few builders and people who work in mcdonals or whatever (basically laymen like me).

You can always tell by Richards tone he doesn't give a shit if he impresses the crowd, a lot of the time he looks as if he hates the crowd, which is actually one of the reasons I like Richard Dawkins.
I liked it when he quoted the editor of the new scientist magazine and said “Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off."

Just wanted to say great points, all of them.

---

(April 4, 2013 at 7:39 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: No change of heart, the desire for God’s existence is overwhelming.

Fixed it for ya.

(April 5, 2013 at 3:16 am)smax Wrote:

(April 3, 2013 at 7:01 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I'm not sure what your objection is exactly, since what I said to start with is that Dawkins will debate Christians but not Creationists.

Christians are creationists.

I can see where this thread started to go wrong. Indeed not all Christians are creationists. If that were the case, all the videos of Dawkins debating Christians makes this irrelevant. I think you've started a thread with a sort of shaky premise. If all Christians are creationists and Dawkins won't debate them, explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4oMfY7q-Uo

(April 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...but I'm always ready to be wrong. Please, feel free to toss loads of evidence on the table - or any evidence at all.

I think you missed Waldorf's point. If you believe that the physical universe is the whole of reality then you will not accept any evidence other than physical evidence. It's not logical to demand physical evidence for things that are not physical. It's like demanding evidence for the existence of an experience like joy.

Hehehe, Chad, Statler doesn't mind elaborating upon all the physical evidence he "has". IIRC he's a YEC (that's right, isn't it Stat, YEC not OEC, or is it the other way round - been awhile). Statlers "point" is actually an excuse for not being able to competently present the evidence he claims is overwhelming. Perhaps he simply doesn't understand the meaning of the word "overwhelming"?

(April 5, 2013 at 9:50 am)CapnAwesome Wrote:

(April 5, 2013 at 3:16 am)smax Wrote: Christians are creationists.

I can see where this thread started to go wrong. Indeed not all Christians are creationists. If that were the case, all the videos of Dawkins debating Christians makes this irrelevant. I think you've started a thread with a sort of shaky premise. If all Christians are creationists and Dawkins won't debate them, explain this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4oMfY7q-Uo

There's is nothing wrong with the premise of this thread. Richard Dawkins refused to debate Mr. Craig and then offered a number of excuses why.

The fact that there may be contradictions to his reasoning is hardly anything of my doing and, therefore, isn't my responsibility.

The actual point of this thread was to evaluate the merits of debating Christians, and where Atheists can improve on their efforts.

Richard Dawkins refusal to engage in certain debates was simply used as a starting point for a much larger and more important discussion.

I'm sorry if the mere mention of his name caused you to miss the much larger point that was being made.

By the way, I have a ton of respect for Richard Dawkins. I just disagree with some of the reasons he's offered up for not engaging in certain debates.

Oh, and one other thing, yes, all Christians are Creationists. That is a fundamental necessity.

---

(April 5, 2013 at 10:42 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(April 4, 2013 at 9:10 pm)Rhythm Wrote: ...but I'm always ready to be wrong. Please, feel free to toss loads of evidence on the table - or any evidence at all.

I think you missed Waldorf's point. If you believe that the physical universe is the whole of reality then you will not accept any evidence other than physical evidence. It's not logical to demand physical evidence for things that are not physical. It's like demanding evidence for the existence of an experience like joy.

In short, this "overwhelming evidence" being spoken of is really nothing tangible at all.