RE: John Lennox and Richard Dawkins
October 13, 2016 at 10:16 am
(This post was last modified: October 13, 2016 at 11:15 am by _Velvet_.)
I really enjoyed this debate, very calm and respectful unlike most debates I watch on the matter.
I would like to point tho that I find very dishonest the way SO MANY Christians debaters use Deist arguments to supposedly support Christianity, the Atheists debater often has to spend great deal of the debate having to constantly separate one idea from the other.
The reason I find this so important its that the way I see Deism, it can be seen as something reasonable, like Dawkins said, something that someone "could make a case of" and speak seriously about what could or couldn't point us to that and what difference would or wouldn't make if such a unpersonal deity/force exists if it doesn't interacts with his creation in any religious way.
The Deist arguments just shouldn't be used to try to defend such an undefendable position, an internally incoherent non-sense like Christianity.
Its like saying all forces and wonders of the universe exists to make sure you don't jerk off or eat pork.
EDIT: Final notes.
As on many other Dawkins debates I could notice that Dawkins's knowledge far exceed his rhetorical skills, he is in my opinion, most of the time, simply unable to sound convincing to anyone who's not already a skeptic, such arguments like "its far less reasonable to suggest an unexplained complex godly entity than stick with the (yet) unexplained natural "simple" universe." are useless to address those who doesn't understand Occam's razor necessity.
I would like to point tho that I find very dishonest the way SO MANY Christians debaters use Deist arguments to supposedly support Christianity, the Atheists debater often has to spend great deal of the debate having to constantly separate one idea from the other.
The reason I find this so important its that the way I see Deism, it can be seen as something reasonable, like Dawkins said, something that someone "could make a case of" and speak seriously about what could or couldn't point us to that and what difference would or wouldn't make if such a unpersonal deity/force exists if it doesn't interacts with his creation in any religious way.
The Deist arguments just shouldn't be used to try to defend such an undefendable position, an internally incoherent non-sense like Christianity.
Its like saying all forces and wonders of the universe exists to make sure you don't jerk off or eat pork.
EDIT: Final notes.
As on many other Dawkins debates I could notice that Dawkins's knowledge far exceed his rhetorical skills, he is in my opinion, most of the time, simply unable to sound convincing to anyone who's not already a skeptic, such arguments like "its far less reasonable to suggest an unexplained complex godly entity than stick with the (yet) unexplained natural "simple" universe." are useless to address those who doesn't understand Occam's razor necessity.
