Richard Dawkins Nov 2015

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: luthier
I only ask because Dawkins does seem reserved compared to other videos I have watched. He is quite a biologist so I do appreciate his contributions. I have a close friend who has his masters in theology but is an atheist. Thats the only reason I ask.

His calm demeanor is because the biblical scholar isn't making any erroneous, unfounded claims. There's no need for him to be more forward because the biblical scholar hasn't made any logical fallacies.

originally posted by: luthier
I always considered a lack of beliefs agnostic but I have been partially convinced of that isn't always the case.

Agnosticism, at it's core, is Atheistic. Agnostics don't state "I do not believe there is or isn't a god"; The actual definition of Agnosticism, however, is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine.

originally posted by: luthier
Personally I am an agnostic who leans Deist but I can appreciate any good debater.

May I ask what your personal belief on the matter of gods are?

originally posted by: luthier
The video though is interesting. However, expecting documents to exist passed 1800 bc is not proof events did not happen. Especially in an area rife with warfare. Not that the bible is proof of anything either. Ancient history can be a bit tricky.

I don't believe anyone was stating that there were no events, but rather "no evidence exists to suggest these particular events occurred".

originally posted by: luthier
We have such limited samples its hard to say even with the study of mitochondrial DNA where modern man really came from.

Science doesn't work with absolutes or certainties. It is all a matter of percentages of observations that suggest a particular functionality or history.

I believe you may be viewing this from a slightly misinformed position

My beliefs on Gods are they are most likely myths and non understood events in nature. My leaning towards deism is through philosophy and cosmology. Particularly Dr. Barnes work on Fine Tuning. I think it's possible something created our universe like a computer program. Thats about as far as I go with beliefs.

Science doesn't work with absolutes not sure what you mean by that or how I stated it does. However of we found evidence it certainly would say humans came from here. Thats not impossible. Though I guess it would be still " most likely". I am referring to the fact most people believe out of Africa 2 is absolute. Many articles publish it that way.

What is my misinformed position?

a reply to: luthier

And no I don't agree. Harris did beat Craig up but not Made. Read the transcript if you need to or other trained scholars opinions.

Harris?

Whos Harris? Did you read my post...

I said Ehrman.vs Craig... Ehrman ruined him in the debate they had... Ehrman presented facts... while Craig fell back on his personal beliefs... Bart Ehrman puppied Mr Craig

a reply to: Akragon

Who's Harris? LOL

a reply to: windword

Ah thanks... Never heard of the guy, and I've watched a lot of debates

two hours though... sigh

Is it worth the watch at least?

a reply to: Akragon

Sam Harris is an intellectual GIANT!



Take your time and watch at your leisure. But yeah, it's worth it!

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

And no I don't agree. Harris did beat Craig up but not Made. Read the transcript if you need to or other trained scholars opinions.

Harris?

Whos Harris? Did you read my post...

I said Ehrman.vs Craig... Ehrman ruined him in the debate they had... Ehrman presented facts... while Craig fell back on his personal beliefs... Bart Ehrman puppied Mr Craig

That may be your opinion but the philosophy community doesn't agree with you. Debating is not only about facts. It's also about not committing fallacy in arguement. Ehrman made many mis steps in that debate.

You wouldn't use an English major to peer review a science journal. The same applies to philosophy. If you don't believe me read reviews from scholars of that debate.

Harris how ever did win his debate with Craig not because he just used facts but because his arguement was flawless.

I will also say of you don't respect Craig for his debating skills you don't understand debating very well. It's not that he is always right or has facts. It's that he destroys peoples own arguements.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Akragon

Sam Harris is a intellectual GIANT!

Take your time and watch at your leisure. But yeah, it's worth it!

Yes he is! One of my favorite philosophers if not my favorite.

a reply to: luthier

When someone counters facts with personal belief in a debate... that's a loss my friend

Perhaps you might link me to these philosophical communities and their thoughts on that debate?

I will also say of you don't respect Craig for his debating skills you don't understand debating very well. It's not that he is always right or has facts. It's that he destroys peoples own arguements.

IF you say so... He didn't destroy anything in that debate at all...

It was kinda sad actually... he made no points on anything Dr.Ehrman actually stated, as I've said all he did though the entire video was toss his personal beliefs around

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

When someone counters facts with personal belief in a debate... that's a loss my friend

Perhaps you might link me to these philosophical communities and their thoughts on that debate?

I will also say of you don't respect Craig for his debating skills you don't understand debating very well. It's not that he is always right or has facts. It's that he destroys peoples own arguements.

IF you say so... He didn't destroy anything in that debate at all...

It was kinda sad actually... he made no points on anything Dr.Ehrman actually stated, as I've said all he did though the entire video was toss his personal beliefs around

Did Ehrman counter Craig's arguement? He barely even addressed the points. I think you are confused as to what debating is. Debating is not about spouting off facts. It's about deconstructing your opponents arguement and making sure yours is not deconstructed. People loose debates who are right but get scattered or create a falacy they don't recover from. People win debates who are "wrong" by deconstructing their opponents logic.

And it's not if I say so. Craig is well well respected by the philosophy community. You can look that up yourself.

Again I don't think Craig is good debater because he is "right". It's because he can debate. He also is a wealth of knowledge .

There are plenty of debates he was less than stellar in and lost but that was not one.
commonsenseatheism.com...

Here is a website that explains what I am talking about. One that you will most likely accept since it is an Atheist website.

a reply to: luthier

Did Ehrman counter Craig's arguement?

Yeah...he did... watch it again... Craig barely had an argument, he just spout off his personal beliefs on every question asked by the person leading the debate

im afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this argument...

Craig lost that debate from every angle...and I invite anyone that hasn't seen the video in question to watch it for yourself....



but this is not the topic of the thread in any case...

SO back to Dawkins and the VIdeo in the OP

Here is a website that explains what I am talking about. One that you will most likely accept since it is an Atheist website.

You can't be serious?

First I am far from an atheist... and secondly that link said nothing about the debate in question

sigh... assumptions

The link gives a point by point on how to beat Craig in a debate?

Seems pretty simple... lay down some solid facts, and watch him squirm... Just as Dr.Ehrman did

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

Did Ehrman counter Craig's arguement?

Yeah...he did... watch it again... Craig barely had an argument, he just spout off his personal beliefs on every question asked by the person leading the debate

im afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this argument...

Craig lost that debate from every angle...and I invite anyone that hasn't seen the video in question to watch it for yourself....

but this is not the topic of the thread in any case...

SO back to Dawkins and the VIdeo in the OP

I watched it. He ignores Craig 4 points. Trust me I am not an apologist. I do have debating expireince. Also I prefer to read the transcripts which are readily available. Click the link I provided.


But yes I am sorry to drift the thread. In any case I believe Dawkins is a brilliant scientist and not so brilliant a philosopher.

a reply to: luthier

I watched it. He ignores Craig 4 points. Trust me I am not an apologist. I do have debating expireince. Also I prefer to read the transcripts which are readily available. Click the link I provided.

Plenty of experience myself actually... And Craig ignored everything Ehrman said, and went on a little tirade about his own personal beliefs, as I've said numerous times...

Anyways... Forget it...

originally posted by: Ghost147


It's because Hovind has nothing to present as an argument. All he states are things that have been so thoroughly debunked over and over again that there is no need to kick that dead horse into dust.

Although, if you feel Hovind has valid arguments, you're free to make a discussion on the matter? I for one love to kick dead horses.

It's because Dawkins was a coward and nothing you could say would make many who wanted to see that debate think different
Hovind with all his faults made so many evolutionists look like they were still part of the trees trunk it was not funny any more

You can say what you want but Dawkins , coward, couldn't contest Hovind.
Dawkins even knew Hovinds arguments and still couldn't contest them with any real science

Hovinds arguments never changed, Dawkins was always to scared to get involved

The only dead donkey is Dawkins, fear of having to defend his religion

Ghost, stop stalking me

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's because Dawkins was a coward

You can say what you want but Dawkins , coward

Dawkins was always to scared to get involved

The only dead donkey is Dawkins

Ghost, stop stalking me

Are you trying to be ironic intentionally?

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
It's because Dawkins was a coward

You can say what you want but Dawkins , coward

Dawkins was always to scared to get involved

The only dead donkey is Dawkins

Ghost, stop stalking me

Are you trying to be ironic intentionally?

No just parroting

So why didn't mr Dawkins debate mr Hovind
Fraidy cat is he

We all wanted to see it, just Dawkins wouldn't do it, why not I wonder

a reply to: Ghost147

"Any serious historian who practices history or historiography would not read the text at face value and assume everything happened, you have to have other ways of determining the validity of the text. With the biblical texts, there are outside cases where we can corroborate biblical narrative, or the existence of a king that did certain things, and other times the evidence points in the opposite direction. So sometimes you'll hear people say "it's all true" or "it's all false", and that's a horrible false dichotomy."

I was listening to the historian Tom Holland make the exact same point in a lecture last week. He was hawking his new book, Dynasty, about the Caesars. Disappointingly, he suggested that all the scandalous stories about Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, Messalina, etc., are probably false or mean something entirely different from what they have come down to us as.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No just parroting

You're actively parroting what you consider a cowardly action?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So why didn't mr Dawkins debate mr Hovind

Many individuals whom hold a great deal of respect and knowledge in their particular fields of study do not debate people who are known to be cynical and an anti-intellectualist. There will be no new information that Hovind would spout because all he has are unfounded claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. Dawkins won't debate Hovind because it's simply pointless to do so.

Not only that, but Kent Hovind has been known to agree to terms, and then before the debate actually starts, try to manipulate the debate so much so that the opposing position is essentially not allowed to talk at all. (I can cite this if you're interested)

But, don't take my opinion for it, just go ahead and post a point from one of 'dr' Hovinds lectures or videos in a new thread and I (as well as many other members here) can explain how each one of his points are entirely counterfactual.

Now, I can provide evidence for all my claims. How about instead of just stating your opinion on the matter, you actually provide a source of information that backs up your claim?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: luthier

Did Ehrman counter Craig's arguement?

Yeah...he did... watch it again... Craig barely had an argument, he just spout off his personal beliefs on every question asked by the person leading the debate

im afraid we will have to agree to disagree on this argument...

Craig lost that debate from every angle...and I invite anyone that hasn't seen the video in question to watch it for yourself....

but this is not the topic of the thread in any case...

SO back to Dawkins and the VIdeo in the OP

Here is a website that explains what I am talking about. One that you will most likely accept since it is an Atheist website.

You can't be serious?

First I am far from an atheist... and secondly that link said nothing about the debate in question

sigh... assumptions

The link gives a point by point on how to beat Craig in a debate?

Seems pretty simple... lay down some solid facts, and watch him squirm... Just as Dr.Ehrman did

This is the last post I will make about this. You can't be taken too seriously as a debater if you don't recognize what debating is. It is extremely easy to find Craig's philosophical and debating history (hundreds of publications reviewed) and how he is accepted in the philosophy community. Your denial of this just makes you seem unaware of debating and philosophy. Debating isn't about thinking the guy who has your opinion wins. There are rules and logic chains to follow.

Here is another example of what I am talking about. Like my last link which you seemed to not entirely read (along with the several links within it to find more information). This link is another link filled with how to find what the academic philosophy community believes about Craig who is a Dr. Of philosophy.
Being a scientist today does not in any way make you good at debating or philosophy as we see with both Dawkins and Stenger who are both brilliant scientists and poor philosophers.

www.uncommondescent.com...

I don't know much about this guy,but he is corcorrect tthat its eiteither all true or all false is an illogical approach. I am a Christian, but the Holy Spirit is the most reliable way of discerning history from allegory. And common sense.

originally posted by: Ghost147

originally posted by: Raggedyman
No just parroting

You're actively parroting what you consider a cowardly action?

originally posted by: Raggedyman
So why didn't mr Dawkins debate mr Hovind

Many individuals whom hold a great deal of respect and knowledge in their particular fields of study do not debate people who are known to be cynical and an anti-intellectualist. There will be no new information that Hovind would spout because all he has are unfounded claims that have already been thoroughly debunked. Dawkins won't debate Hovind because it's simply pointless to do so.

Not only that, but Kent Hovind has been known to agree to terms, and then before the debate actually starts, try to manipulate the debate so much so that the opposing position is essentially not allowed to talk at all. (I can cite this if you're interested)

But, don't take my opinion for it, just go ahead and post a point from one of 'dr' Hovinds lectures or videos in a new thread and I (as well as many other members here) can explain how each one of his points are entirely counterfactual.

Now, I can provide evidence for all my claims. How about instead of just stating your opinion on the matter, you actually provide a source of information that backs up your claim?

Great response to a question I didn't ask
Why is Dawkins such a coward when it comes to debating
Terms, what?
It's a debate, don't need terms when debating science less you are hiding something or trying to lie

I have no respect for Dawkins at all, he turned tail and runs away from debating because he constantly looked a fool

A great deal of individuals who triumph evolution have been crushed by Hovind, Dawkins was smart, knew better than to make a fool of himself

Agree to terms? Seriously sounds lik cowardic to me

And Dawkins won't debate because those claims have not been debunked, otherwise Dawkins would debate
Dawkins won't debate anyone anymore because he constantly looked stupid.

Your hero