(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.
Forgive me, but this kind of sounds like something people who lose debates say.
I agree with you that debates do not establish truth, but I am not sure anyone even thinks that is their purpose (or at least nobody should). Debating is a great way of putting ideas on the table, providing your justification for those ideas, allowing your opponent to accurately present his ideas, and sharpening your own position. That being said I do not think there is much value to the Hitchens style debates we see today, those are more rhetoric based and don’t really accomplish much. I disagree with Craig on a few theological issues but he is a good debater, Dawkins on the other hand has been getting thumped in debates since the mid 80’s, atheists can do better.
(April 3, 2013 at 10:30 pm)thesummerqueen Wrote: Why the hell should he continue to argue with people who use the same arguments that have been presented over the past 2000 years? That's like continuing to argue with the fucknuts that come onto this forum always thinking they're the first ones to come up with the idea of Jesus. It doesn't matter if they're one flavor of Christian or the other - the debate isn't going to resolve anything and only serves as mental masturbation for the more militant of both sides.
Come on Your Highness
, the arguments for the existence of God are not that old at all; but even if they were why should someone cease using an argument simply because it’s been used for a long period of time? I think until someone actually refutes the argument people should continue to present it.
