Richard Dawkins Debates John Lennox - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Daoust · 10-03-2007, 05:12 PM

You all know who the first guy is, the second guy is John Lennox, who is Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford.

(Today, October 3, 2007) MBN will present a debate sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation on what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The decision one makes regarding this question has implications that reverberate throughout eternity to be sure, but it also affects temporal existence from government policy to the individual. Historically, man’s belief in the transcendent has served as a restraint on his conduct and provided hope for his future. Now, it is argued, “God is dead”, and man can do very well without him.

The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.

To learn more about the debate, go here:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article...pits-/3255.htm

Willravel · 10-03-2007, 05:17 PM

Finally someone with half a brain to debate Dawkins.

DaveOrion · 10-03-2007, 05:22 PM

Finally someone realizes that Dawkins only has half a brain.

Willravel · 10-03-2007, 05:26 PM

Ugh. What I mean is that they usually pair him up with a priest or something, which just reinforced the apples and oranges arguments you can see reflected here on TFP.

Also, Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest people alive today. Saying he has half a brain ignores his incredible acomplishments.

Quote:

Dawkins holds honorary doctorates in science from the University of Westminster, the University of Durham[71] and University of Hull, and an honorary doctorate from the Open University and from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel.[2] He also holds honorary doctorates of letters from the University of St Andrews and Australian National University, and was elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Literature in 1997 and Royal Society in 2001.[2] He is vice-president of the British Humanist Association.
Dawkins has won numerous awards, including the Royal Society of Literature Award (1987), Los Angeles Times Literary Prize (1987), Zoological Society of London Silver Medal (1989), Michael Faraday Award (1990), Nakayama Prize (1994), Humanist of the Year Award (1996), the fifth International Cosmos Prize (1997), Kistler Prize (2001), Medal of the Presidency of the Italian Republic (2001), and the Bicentennial Kelvin Medal of The Royal Philosophical Society of Glasgow (2002).[2] Dawkins topped Prospect magazine's 2004 list of the top 100 public British intellectuals, as decided by the readers, receiving twice as many votes as the runner-up.[72] In 2005, the Hamburg-based Alfred Toepfer Foundation awarded him their Shakespeare Prize in recognition of his "concise and accessible presentation of scientific knowledge".[73] Dawkins was the Galaxy British Book Awards Author of the Year for 2007.[74] Dawkins was listed in Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2007.[75]
Since 2003, the Atheist Alliance International has awarded a prize during their annual conferences, honouring an outstanding atheist whose work has done most to raise public awareness of atheism during that year. It is known as the "Richard Dawkins award", in honour of Dawkins' own work.[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...nd_recognition

ShaniFaye · 10-03-2007, 06:07 PM

All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass

Shauk · 10-03-2007, 06:17 PM

it's hard being smarter than most of your fellow race and not gain a sense of superiority. I'm sure you've encountered stupid people before, it makes you very irritable.

Ustwo · 10-03-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShaniFaye

All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass

Hes a complete asshole, but I've come to appreciate it, even in areas I don't agree with him.

DaveOrion · 10-03-2007, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Finally someone with half a brain to debate Dawkins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

What I mean is that they usually pair him up with a priest or something,

Saying that priests or 'something

' only have half a brain is flamebait at its finest.

Willravel · 10-03-2007, 07:27 PM

Usually it's college students asking him "What if you're wrong?!" instead of asking a real question. Those are the half brains. They aren't listening to Dawkins at all. They're just there to be smart asses. I didn't intend to suggest that the priests were half brains.

As for the priests, they're just not arguing the same things at all. The priest argues faith, then Dawkins argues logic. They both stare at each other for a minute, then repeat. This is probably followed by tea, but I can't be sure because the YouTube video usually ends before that point.

filtherton · 10-03-2007, 08:03 PM

What's there to debate? The existence of god is unprovable, therefore any assertions for or against are axiomatic, and as such, they aren't really debatable on their own. Logic never enters the picture- axioms are outside the scope of logic.

Here's a perfectly valid, and logically unassailable proof that god exists:

The universe is too complex to have come about on its own, therefore some manner of god exists. QED

I'm not saying it's that interesting, or even that i find it convincing. It is still a valid proof, as far as logical rigor goes. You can't invalidate the logic there, because if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the logic of that simple proof is bullet proof, like as in IT'S CRIME FIGHTING TIME.

The point where the notion of proof came into matters of pure philosophy was the exact point where people who don't understand what it means to prove something- or even how meaningless a proof can be- got involved.

Once you can get past the need to prove axioms, you can get to the more important and interesting things, like what those axioms actually mean. This is where the real debate should lie, but it's also where shit gets messy and everybody gets pissy for a while and then eventually agrees to disagree, or implicitly agrees to disagree.

Ustwo · 10-03-2007, 09:19 PM

Any being that could create the universe would be more complex than the universe, therefore saying it was created by god creates a bigger problem than it solves.

The existence of god is possible, but not probable.

Shauk · 10-03-2007, 09:30 PM

then there is always the question of "where, who, or what" lead up to the existance of this "god"

did we think him into existence, or did he come from an even higher power?

filtherton · 10-04-2007, 05:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Any being that could create the universe would be more complex than the universe, therefore saying it was created by god creates a bigger problem than it solves.

The existence of god is possible, but not probable.

The nature of a diety might be such that a universe in which it exists would be less complex than a universe in which it did not.

But it really depends on what you mean by complex.

fresnelly · 10-04-2007, 05:33 AM

Also, the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 1764.

Challah · 10-04-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass

That's absolutely true, but being an ass doesn't make him any less correct.

I'm picking up a copy of The God Delusion.

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 11:33 AM

It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Ustwo · 10-04-2007, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Challah

That's absolutely true, but being an ass doesn't make him any less correct.

I'm picking up a copy of The God Delusion.

Much of it was preaching to the choir to me, but the part on the Darwinian evolution I found very enlightening as to the question 'why religion'.

Challah · 10-04-2007, 12:36 PM

Well, the book shop around the corner didn't have a copy of the The God Delusion, so I bought The End of Faith by Sam Harris instead. Apparently it's along the same lines.

DaveOrion · 10-04-2007, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of. Soon they'll be going door to door passing out pamphlets of Dawkins delusional musings. God help us all......

What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness???
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.

Now they have a reason.......

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of. Soon they'll be going door to door passing out pamphlets of Dawkins delusional musings. God help us all......

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I read the bible. It's also an interesting read. If someone is capable, they'll naturally become an atheist. I just answer questions if people ask.

Infinite_Loser · 10-04-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

If someone is capable, they'll naturally become an atheist.

Oh, please do elaborate.

DaveOrion · 10-04-2007, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I read the bible. It's also an interesting read. If someone is capable, they'll naturally become an atheist. I just answer questions if people ask.

But your view of the Bible is solely based on your fundamentalist upbringing. Taken in its proper context, taking into account when and who it was written by, considering many parts are allegorical if not mythical and should not be taken literally, seeing it as a whole, a story leading up to a defining moment in human history, it ain't half bad.

I still love you will, you atheist bastard.

Daoust · 10-04-2007, 01:06 PM

Quote:

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of.

Interesting that you say this. One of Lennox's points that he made in the debate was that atheism is a religion, or faith. Dawkins disagreed.

I am not sure yet if the debate is up online. I think it will be soon. When it does I'll post a link. I've read a post debate play by play and I think it sounded very interesting.

DaveOrion · 10-04-2007, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Oh, please do elaborate.

Does he have to???

ubertuber · 10-04-2007, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.

Honestly I thought that Hitchens book was far more recommendable. It suffered the same flaws, but to a far lesser extent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of. Soon they'll be going door to door passing out pamphlets of Dawkins delusional musings. God help us all......

Can you say more about your surprise? It only seems natural to me that atheists would be as motivated (if not more) than religious folks to spread their views. I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion though - in that it lacks faith as a component that would seem to be a sloppy classification. In fact, I think one would be missing the point of atheism if they only consider it to be a negative classification - the absence of religious belief. I think of atheists (and myself) as being devoted to the observable universe and rationalism. That's a positive classification (here I mean negative and positive in their classification orientation, not qualitative senses).

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Oh, please do elaborate.

I've found that some people are predisposition to religion and some are predisposition to atheism. It's not an ultimate deciding factor as to their perception, but it can play a strong role. My step brother was studying to be a monk when we first met but was interested in learning about my outlook. He asked a ton of questions of me and decided after a lot of thinking that he was essentially atheist (he reads a lot of Meister Eckhart). I didn't convert him, he converted himself because his though processes found atheism to be a better fit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

But your view of the Bible is solely based on your fundamentalist upbringing. Taken in its proper context, taking into account when and who it was written by, considering many parts are allegorical if not mythical and should not be taken literally, seeing it as a whole, a story leading up to a defining moment in human history, it ain't half bad.

It's really not. I enjoy reading the bible just as much as I enjoy reading about Zeus or Anasi. They're fascinating and not only provide cultural context but also insight into humanity itself.

Dawkins is shrill in God Delusion, but I've read stuff by people I don't agree with before (John Perkins, for example, tends to exaggerate pretty badly) and the tone really doesn't make a difference to me. If people get pissed at Dawkins, then put it down. God Delusion is still an amazing book. Some of Dawkins' inferences and the directions he takes are really interesting.

DaveOrion · 10-04-2007, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Can you say more about your surprise? It only seems natural to me that atheists would be as motivated (if not more) than religious folks to spread their views. I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion though - in that it lacks faith as a component that would seem to be a sloppy classification. In fact, I think one would be missing the point of atheism if they only consider it to be a negative classification - the absence of religious belief. I think of atheists (and myself) as being devoted to the observable universe and rationalism. That's a positive classification (here I mean negative and positive in their classification orientation, not qualitative senses).

I didn't say I was surprised, only fascinated. I think that eventually atheism will be classified as a religion. All you need is an outspoken leader, which they have, and a group of people willing to follow. I could also see this splitting into separate camps much as Christianity or other religions have. Its the nature of many to stick to their beliefs, never giving on inch, arguing over idiotic details, inventing more dogma for lost souls to absorb into their pitiful empty lives, which in the end only results in more conflict and strife.

Repeating my belief that life is more than logic & rationalism is beginning to get very redundant. I think I'll change my sig.......

filtherton · 10-04-2007, 01:55 PM

I know that this is a discussion that's already been had, but i seem to have forgotten. How is atheism lacking in faith?

I know it lacks a faith in a diety, but the idea that an atheist is a person without faith doesn't make sense to me in light of the fact that even the smallest balloon of a notion requires a little faith to blow it up.

I think therefore i am? That's circular logic. I think because i think is a clearer way of saying the same thing.

This atheism thing isn't as cut and dry as some would like to make it seem.

Ustwo · 10-04-2007, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.

You know I don't think it was written to convince anyone who was religious to become an atheist. The, tone, the examples, the condescending nature would rise the already often hair trigger hackles of the religious mind and close any avenue of persuasion.

I think it was targeted more at the agnostic leading toward atheist. Someone who wouldn't take offense at the scathing criticisms and was just looking for a way to articulate what they already felt.

Like I said much of what he said was preaching to the choir (and an ironic metaphor that is) and I found myself skimming early on, plus he had a unfortunate habit of interjecting his political views where they really added nothing to the topic, I don't think Dawkins knows what a libertarian is for one thing. While he didn't change my opinion on anything he did give me a bit more resolve in questioning the status quo.

Why do we accept faith and religious beliefs as untouchable? Why must we turn off our brains when the subject comes up? Why is the question of religion one that just must never be discussed? Prior to my exposure to Dawkins I'd be a lot more passive in the debate, but I think he has a very good point that its time to be willing to look at the whole thing with a cold hard analytical eye.

Charlatan · 10-04-2007, 02:25 PM

Dawkins has been pretty clear that he was targeting Agnostics with his book and his pitch.

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I know that this is a discussion that's already been had, but i seem to have forgotten. How is atheism lacking in faith?

I know it lacks a faith in a diety, but the idea that an atheist is a person without faith doesn't make sense to me in light of the fact that even the smallest balloon of a notion requires a little faith to blow it up.

I think therefore i am? That's circular logic. I think because i think is a clearer way of saying the same thing.

This atheism thing isn't as cut and dry as some would like to make it seem.

It is cut and dry. There's weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism, which describes the vast majority of atheists, understands that there is a near impossible chance that god exists, simply because one cannot prove a negative. Strong atheism is the absolute belief that god doesn't exist without even the smallest concession that one cannot prove a negative.

Ustwo · 10-04-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It is cut and dry. There's weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism, which describes the vast majority of atheists, understands that there is a near impossible chance that god exists, simply because one cannot prove a negative. Strong atheism is the absolute belief that god doesn't exist without even the smallest concession that one cannot prove a negative.

Well even by Dawkins own admitting he would be a weak atheist then.

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 03:10 PM

Yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not even really a concession, though. Just the same as a weak atheist will admit that the JudeoChristian god may exist, the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster may exist (as I suspect you, UsTwo, agree). Because one cannot definitively disprove something in a vacuum of evidence is hardly proof of it's existence. The important part, though, is in admitting that believing in something despite a lack of evidence is plainly wrong. Just as I would be wrong to state with certainty that the flying spaghetti monster is real, a theist is wrong for saying definitively that god exists.

I should mention that the definitions of strong and weak atheism change depending on who you ask. I'm just trying to describe the position of a vast majority of self described atheists.

filtherton · 10-04-2007, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

It is cut and dry. There's weak and strong atheism. Weak atheism, which describes the vast majority of atheists, understands that there is a near impossible chance that god exists, simply because one cannot prove a negative. Strong atheism is the absolute belief that god doesn't exist without even the smallest concession that one cannot prove a negative.

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing here, but...

Either position is requires faith, even if one were to completely sidestep the whole subject of atheism. Belief in anything requires faith, either directly or indirectly. Driving across a freeway bridge is an act of faith. Riding a bicycle is an act of faith. Believing that the only things that are worth believing are those that pass some sort of ultimately arbitrary standard is definitely an act of faith.

Do strong atheists believe in their own existence? How can they? It's not like it's something anyone can prove in any kind of nontrivial way, it's not even something you can say is likely, because the notion of probability in this context doesn't really apply.

DaveOrion · 10-04-2007, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not even really a concession, though. Just the same as a weak atheist will admit that the JudeoChristian god may exist, the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster may exist (as I suspect you, UsTwo, agree). Because one cannot definitively disprove something in a vacuum of evidence is hardly proof of it's existence. The important part, though, is in admitting that believing in something despite a lack of evidence is plainly wrong. Just as I would be wrong to state with certainty that the flying spaghetti monster is real, a theist is wrong for saying definitively that god exists.

Will, ya know that the ignominious flying spaghetti monster reference, only invokes the power of total logical thinking, relying on an absolute faith in the power of scientific reasoning, logic, & rationalism, which is fine if you base your life on a purely Vulcan point of view. Some humans always try to suppress their emotions, bury them deep inside, and try to forget about the purely emotional, completely liberating, & absolutely mind empowering, view that God actually exists. I prefer to exist in a state that is open to all possibilities, ready and willing to consider new trains of thought, and willing to accept the fact that humans really don't now shit about the true nature of the universe, let alone the nature of themselves.

I think I'll check out the titty board now, and leave the existential postulation to the experts. Live Long & Prosper Will......

Charlatan · 10-04-2007, 04:23 PM

I am open to possibilities but find the likelihood that there is a god to be so completely unlikely that I would rather spend my time and energy thinking about other things.

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Maybe we're not talking about the same thing here, but...

Either position is requires faith, even if one were to completely sidestep the whole subject of atheism. Belief in anything requires faith, either directly or indirectly. Driving across a freeway bridge is an act of faith. Riding a bicycle is an act of faith. Believing that the only things that are worth believing are those that pass some sort of ultimately arbitrary standard is definitely an act of faith.

Do strong atheists believe in their own existence? How can they? It's not like it's something anyone can prove in any kind of nontrivial way, it's not even something you can say is likely, because the notion of probability in this context doesn't really apply.

Understanding the perceptions from our five senses and building up understandings of systems based on our perceptions and deductive reasoning is not faith, it's understanding. There's a huge difference. Faith happens despite evidence. Understanding happens because of evidence.

There is evidence that I, being my physical self (bones, nervous system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, etc.), exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveMatrix

Will, ya know that the ignominious flying spaghetti monster reference, only invokes the power of total logical thinking, relying on an absolute faith in the power of scientific reasoning, logic, & rationalism, which is fine if you base your life on a purely Vulcan point of view. Some humans always try to suppress their emotions, bury them deep inside, and try to forget about the purely emotional, completely liberating, & absolutely mind empowering, view that God actually exists. I prefer to exist in a state that is open to all possibilities, ready and willing to consider new trains of thought, and willing to accept the fact that humans really don't now shit about the true nature of the universe, let alone the nature of themselves.

Vulcans aren't just logical, they suppress their feelings. Atheists don't suppress our feelings. God has nothing to do with emotions. Yeesh.

filtherton · 10-04-2007, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I am open to possibilities but find the likelihood that there is a god to be so completely unlikely that I would rather spend my time and energy thinking about other things.

I'm right there with you, charlie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Understanding the perceptions from our five senses and building up understandings of systems based on our perceptions and deductive reasoning is not faith, it's understanding. There's a huge difference. Faith happens despite evidence. Understanding happens because of evidence.

Faith doesn't happen despite evidence, it happens when evidence is inconclusive. Understanding is always limited. The world that is is much more robust than the world that we are capable of understanding.

We're not talking about some sort of grand macro perspective on all the knowledge humanity has accumulated. We're talking about the awareness and understanding of a single person. There's no way that you, or anyone else, can possibly understand the significance, explanation and meaning of everything that they come across.

Quote:

There is evidence that I, being my physical self (bones, nervous system, cardiovascular system, nervous system, etc.), exist.

So you did some sort of experiment and determined that you existed. What was your control? Is there a wilravel that doesn't exist, and if so, why couldn't it be the willravel that you are? I know it sounds simple, but it's a pretty fundamental thing, proving that you exist, you should think about it.

Infinite_Loser · 10-04-2007, 05:25 PM

Actually... Willravel doesn't exist 'cuz I've never seen him

Willravel · 10-04-2007, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

Faith doesn't happen despite evidence, it happens when evidence is inconclusive. Understanding is always limited. The world that is is much more robust than the world that we are capable of understanding.

So we make it up if we don't understand it? That is the part of faith in the supernatural that flies in the face of reason. Reasonable: if you don't know something, study it. Unreasonable: if you don't understand it, make it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

We're not talking about some sort of grand macro perspective on all the knowledge humanity has accumulated. We're talking about the awareness and understanding of a single person. There's no way that you, or anyone else, can possibly understand the significance, explanation and meaning of everything that they come across.

I can try without giving up and saying "it's god". That's the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

So you did some sort of experiment and determined that you existed. What was your control? Is there a wilravel that doesn't exist, and if so, why couldn't it be the willravel that you are? I know it sounds simple, but it's a pretty fundamental thing, proving that you exist, you should think about it.

I understand most of the biology of the systems that make up my body. It's not philosophical, it's scientific.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Actually... Willravel doesn't exist 'cuz I've never seen him

That reminds me of a funny vid I saw on Youtube:

10-03-2007, 05:12 PM	#1 (permalink)
Daoust "I'm sorry. What was the question?" Location: Paradise Regained	Richard Dawkins Debates John Lennox You all know who the first guy is, the second guy is John Lennox, who is Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford. (Today, October 3, 2007) MBN will present a debate sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation on what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The decision one makes regarding this question has implications that reverberate throughout eternity to be sure, but it also affects temporal existence from government policy to the individual. Historically, man’s belief in the transcendent has served as a restraint on his conduct and provided hope for his future. Now, it is argued, “God is dead”, and man can do very well without him. The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford. To learn more about the debate, go here: http://au.christiantoday.com/article...pits-/3255.htm __________________ I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

10-03-2007, 05:22 PM	#3 (permalink)
DaveOrion Playing With Fire Location: Disaster Area	Finally someone realizes that Dawkins only has half a brain. __________________ *Syriana*...have you ever tried liquid MDMA?....Liquid MDMA? No....Arash, when you wanna do this?.....After prayer...

10-03-2007, 06:07 PM	#5 (permalink)
ShaniFaye Submit to me, you know you want to Location: Lilburn, Ga	All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass __________________ *I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!*

10-03-2007, 09:19 PM	#11 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Any being that could create the universe would be more complex than the universe, therefore saying it was created by god creates a bigger problem than it solves. The existence of god is possible, but not probable. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

10-04-2007, 05:33 AM	#14 (permalink)
fresnelly Functionally Appropriate Location: Toronto	Also, the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 1764. __________________ Building an artificial intelligence that appreciates Mozart is easy. Building an A.I. that appreciates a theme restaurant is the real challenge - Kit Roebuck - Nine Planets Without Intelligent Life

10-03-2007, 05:17 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Finally someone with half a brain to debate Dawkins.

10-03-2007, 06:17 PM	#6 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	it's hard being smarter than most of your fellow race and not gain a sense of superiority. I'm sure you've encountered stupid people before, it makes you very irritable.

10-03-2007, 07:27 PM	#9 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Usually it's college students asking him "What if you're wrong?!" instead of asking a real question. Those are the half brains. They aren't listening to Dawkins at all. They're just there to be smart asses. I didn't intend to suggest that the priests were half brains. As for the priests, they're just not arguing the same things at all. The priest argues faith, then Dawkins argues logic. They both stare at each other for a minute, then repeat. This is probably followed by tea, but I can't be sure because the YouTube video usually ends before that point.

10-03-2007, 08:03 PM	#10 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	What's there to debate? The existence of god is unprovable, therefore any assertions for or against are axiomatic, and as such, they aren't really debatable on their own. Logic never enters the picture- axioms are outside the scope of logic. Here's a perfectly valid, and logically unassailable proof that god exists: The universe is too complex to have come about on its own, therefore some manner of god exists. QED I'm not saying it's that interesting, or even that i find it convincing. It is still a valid proof, as far as logical rigor goes. You can't invalidate the logic there, because if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the logic of that simple proof is bullet proof, like as in IT'S CRIME FIGHTING TIME. The point where the notion of proof came into matters of pure philosophy was the exact point where people who don't understand what it means to prove something- or even how meaningless a proof can be- got involved. Once you can get past the need to prove axioms, you can get to the more important and interesting things, like what those axioms actually mean. This is where the real debate should lie, but it's also where shit gets messy and everybody gets pissy for a while and then eventually agrees to disagree, or implicitly agrees to disagree.

10-03-2007, 09:30 PM	#12 (permalink)
Shauk Confused Adult Location: Spokane, WA	then there is always the question of "where, who, or what" lead up to the existance of this "god" did we think him into existence, or did he come from an even higher power?

10-04-2007, 11:33 AM	#16 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

10-04-2007, 12:36 PM	#18 (permalink)
Challah Crazy Location: Canada	Well, the book shop around the corner didn't have a copy of the The God Delusion, so I bought The End of Faith by Sam Harris instead. Apparently it's along the same lines.

10-04-2007, 01:55 PM	#28 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I know that this is a discussion that's already been had, but i seem to have forgotten. How is atheism lacking in faith? I know it lacks a faith in a diety, but the idea that an atheist is a person without faith doesn't make sense to me in light of the fact that even the smallest balloon of a notion requires a little faith to blow it up. I think therefore i am? That's circular logic. I think because i think is a clearer way of saying the same thing. This atheism thing isn't as cut and dry as some would like to make it seem.

10-04-2007, 02:25 PM	#30 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Dawkins has been pretty clear that he was targeting Agnostics with his book and his pitch. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-04-2007, 03:10 PM	#33 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Yes, you're absolutely right, but it's not even really a concession, though. Just the same as a weak atheist will admit that the JudeoChristian god may exist, the invisible pink unicorn or flying spaghetti monster may exist (as I suspect you, UsTwo, agree). Because one cannot definitively disprove something in a vacuum of evidence is hardly proof of it's existence. The important part, though, is in admitting that believing in something despite a lack of evidence is plainly wrong. Just as I would be wrong to state with certainty that the flying spaghetti monster is real, a theist is wrong for saying definitively that god exists. I should mention that the definitions of strong and weak atheism change depending on who you ask. I'm just trying to describe the position of a vast majority of self described atheists.

10-04-2007, 04:23 PM	#36 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I am open to possibilities but find the likelihood that there is a god to be so completely unlikely that I would rather spend my time and energy thinking about other things. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

10-04-2007, 05:25 PM	#39 (permalink)
Infinite_Loser Junkie Location: Lake Mary, FL	Actually... Willravel doesn't exist 'cuz I've never seen him __________________ I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.