It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
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.
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
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: 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?
Here is a website that explains what I am talking about. One that you will most likely accept since it is an Atheist website.
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.
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.
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
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?
"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."
originally posted by: Raggedyman
No just parroting
originally posted by: Raggedyman
So why didn't mr Dawkins debate mr Hovind
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
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?