WE CHALLENGE DAWKINS TO A DISCUSSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC

Galvasean

Ah the public debate, we will let the people decide!

Sure, I'll just load the crowd with my supporters who will yell, whoop and applaud everything I say without really paying much attention to the arguments made by the opposition side.
Mob rule! :pac:

Tomk1

Why is this thrend in the Atheist forum, some creationist "happens" starts this pointless thrend.

Soul Winner

djpbarry wrote: »

Probably, but probably not for the reasons you think.

Why then?

Soul Winner

CerebralCortex wrote: »

William Lane Craig believes in Satan.





Dawkins would kick his ass.

Without a belief in Satan he could hardly argue the case for Christianity with an atheist now could he?

Soul Winner

Dades wrote: »

Exactly - just look at this jumper!

Bad jumpers hey? I know what you mean.

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

possibly. I would certainly be afraid to debate with Craig, I would find it very difficult to not give him a little smack for using such incredibly, insultingly, dumb arguments.

I think the thing you're supposed to do in a debate is to show up your opponents arguments for the dumbness they are with respectful positive arguments of one's own. Smiting your opponent because you find his arguments dumb is a primitive neanderthalistic approach to resolving an issue. Me thinks that you actually find Craig's arguments very strong and the fact that you have no retort just leaves you resentful resulting in lashing out violently with one's fists.

djpbarry

Soul Winner wrote: »

Me thinks that you actually find Craig's arguments very strong...

Methinks you're in the wrong forum. Allow me to redirect you.

Soul Winner

djpbarry wrote: »

Methinks you're in the wrong forum. Allow me to redirect you.

Why silly me. Thanks, you're very kind. Seriously though am I off topic?

AtomicHorror

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the thing you're supposed to do in a debate is to show up your opponents arguments for the dumbness they are with respectful positive arguments of one's own. Smiting your opponent because you find his arguments dumb is a primitive neanderthalistic approach to resolving an issue. Me thinks that you actually find Craig's arguments very strong and the fact that you have no retort just leaves you resentful resulting in lashing out violently with one's fists.

If someone kept trying to tell you the sky was green with all sorts of arguments that sounded like science, and kept at it constantly in the face of all reason and logic for say, 30 years, wouldn't you feel just a bit frustrated with them? Wouldn't you feel it best to decline to debate with them? You might even think or write about harming them, which isn't to say you'd actually do it.

So please, drop the "you're just not able to argue against him" rubbish. We can dismantle his "progressive" creationism rubbish over at the BC&P thread if you like. No violence there, just the total annihilation of arguments for creationism. It's not difficult for us, we just find the mental reset button those guys do when their arguments fall apart to be saddening.

Galvasean

To further AH's point it would be like me and my unfit, untrained buddies to challenge Manchester United to a game of football before the public. United would decline, not for fear of losing, but for the fact that they wouldn't lower themselves to put themselves in the position where they need to prove it against such clearly inferior opposition.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

If someone kept trying to tell you the sky was green with all sorts of arguments that sounded like science, and kept at it constantly in the face of all reason and logic for say, 30 years, wouldn't you feel just a bit frustrated with them? Wouldn't you feel it best to decline to debate with them? You might even think or write about harming them, which isn't to say you'd actually do it.

So please, drop the "you're just not able to argue against him" rubbish. We can dismantle his "progressive" creationism rubbish over at the BC&P thread if you like. No violence there, just the total annihilation of arguments for creationism. It's not difficult for us, we just find the mental reset button those guys do when their arguments fall apart to be saddening.

He might be wrong about everything but if you knew that to be true 100% then surely that would be great grounds to debate him no? Show him the error of his ways. I've listened to quite a few debates that he has had with many prominent atheists and I've yet to hear any of them give one good positive argument for atheism. They can only give negatives about religion

Here's a list of some debates that Craig has done with atheists:

"Does God Exist?". Craig vs. Shook, Univ. of British Columbia, Canada
"Is God a Delusion?". Craig vs. Cooke, Auckland University, New Zealand
"Is God Necessary for Morality? Craig vs. Antony, Univ. of Massachusetts
William Lane Craig and George Williamson on John Gormley radio show
Craig vs. Parsons: Why I Am/Am Not a Christian
Craig vs. Drange: Does God Exist?
Craig vs. Avalos: The Resurrection of Jesus
Craig vs. Bradley: How Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?
Craig vs. Edwards: Easter Debate
Craig vs. Ludemann: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?
Craig vs. Dayton: Does Evil Disprove God?

Re a debate with Dawkins, just leave science out of the debate and just debate why they believe atheism is true/false. If he wants to bring Science into it then just lick him with science. If the above would go out of their way to debate with WLC then why not Dawkins? Here's what Craig was told Dawkins had to say about an invitation to debate with him while he was in the UK some time ago:

"I never heard of Dr William Lane Craig. When debating religion with someone I would go no lower than a Bishop. ...A debate about religion with Dr Craig would look much better on his CV than it would on mine" or something to that effect anyway. I call that 'cop out'. Dr Craig is respected around the world as probably the most important Christian apologist in the world today. I think that would look great on Dawkin's CV, to have defeated such a prominent Christian apologist as Dr. Craig. It would be a great debate so lets have it. If the posters were up around town that this debate was going to take place tomorrow night then I bet all of us would do our uttmost to attend it.

Soul Winner

Galvasean wrote: »

To further AH's point it would be like me and my unfit, untrained buddies to challenge Manchester United to a game of football before the public. United would decline, not for fear of losing, but for the fact that they wouldn't lower themselves to put themselves in the position where they need to prove it against such clearly inferior opposition.

What about a Chartiy debate then? :pac:

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

I've listened to quite a few debates that he has had with many prominent atheists and I've yet to hear any of them give one good positive argument for atheism. They can only give negatives about religion.

I believe the universe is surrounded by an undetectable bubble of glass. I challenge you to engage me in argument while giving positives for your abubblism.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

I believe the universe is surrounded by an undetectable bubble of glass. I challenge you to engage me in argument while giving positives for your abubblism.

For the record I'm not an "abubblist".

Anyway you don't actually believe in this undetectable bubble of glass. And if you did you would have to have good reasons for believing that it is real. So even if you did believe it, I would need to know what the good reasons you had for believing in it are, and then try to argue that those good reasons you have are not good reasons at all or be convinced by the good reasons you give. And if I'm not convinced then I'll give you my reasons for believing that your good reasons for believing in the great bubble are false. That is a debate. What 'good' reasons are there to believe that atheism is true? Even if you proved all the religions in the world wrong that does not necessarily prove that there is no God

Now IMO there are very good reasons to believe that there is a God and there are very good reasons to believe that Jesus was who He claimed to be, which if true makes other religions false. If Jesus was not who He claimed to be then only Christianity is proved false. Now just because this cannot be proven scientifically (yet) it does not mean that it cannot be proven historically. The reason people do not accept Christ as supernatural is because they are not allowed to believe in the supernatural, so therefore that option is out, so He must be explained away by many different naturalistic explanations which when isolated by themselves do nothing to explain the story about Jesus as a whole, only isolated parts of the story, isolated for the sole purpose of being explained naturally. The only “single' explanation that explains the whole story is the explanation that Jesus was who He claimed to be. Which is a supernatural explanation. Or that the reporters were lying, and there are really good reasons to believe that they were not lying.

So by all means give me your good reasons for why you believe this great bubble of glass surrounding the universe is real and I will rebut to the best of my ability or be convinced by your arguments.

Soul Winner

Soul Winner wrote: »

Bad jumpers hey? I know what you mean.

On reflection I take that back. That's actually quite a nice jumper

Dave!

Oh dear -- there really is no hope for you Soul Winner! If you think that's a nice jumper then you're going down the wrong path -- REPENT! :pac:

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

For the record I'm not an "abubblist".

Pretend.

So even if you did believe it, I would need to know what the good reasons you had for believing in it are, and then try to argue that those good reasons you have are not good reasons at all or be convinced by the good reasons you give. And if I'm not convinced then I'll give you my reasons for believing that your good reasons for believing in the great bubble are false. That is a debate.

While you are explaining why my reasons are not good reasons, and while convincing me that my belief in the great bubble is false, you would probably come across as being very negative, would you not?

What 'good' reasons are there to believe that atheism is true?

The alternatives are less likely.

So by all means give me your good reasons for why you believe this great bubble of glass surrounding the universe is real and I will rebut to the best of my ability or be convinced by your arguments.

I had a very convincing dream about the bubble. I read a leaflet where someone else spoke of a similar bubble. I don't want to live in a world not surrounded by a comforting protective bubble. I feel deep down that the bubble is real. I have faith in the bubble.

Soul Winner

Dave! wrote: »

Oh dear -- there really is no hope for you Soul Winner! If you think that's a nice jumper then you're going down the wrong path -- REPENT! :pac:

I will also admit that I can see myself wearing that kind of jumper when the heating bills get too high

Dave!

Soul Winner wrote: »

I will also admit that I can see myself wearing that kind of jumper when the heating bills get too high

I think that makes you an atheist :pac:

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

Pretend.

Ok.

Zillah wrote: »

While you are explaining why my reasons are not good reasons, and while convincing me that my belief in the great bubble is false, you would probably come across as being very negative, would you not?

Possibly, won't know till we trash it out.

Zillah wrote: »

The alternatives are less likely.

So the score remains as follows:

Negatives for alternatives to atheism - 1
Positives for atheism - 0

Zillah wrote: »

I had a very convincing dream about the bubble. I read a leaflet where someone else spoke of a similar bubble. I don't want to live in a world not surrounded by a comforting protective bubble. I feel deep down that the bubble is real. I have faith in the bubble.

So you are a gnostic bubblist then? Are they the good reasons? If so then they are not very strong arguments. I don't think you can compare those reasons with the good reasons to believe that there is a God unless you think that religion is made up purely of gnostics.

Zillah

Soul Winner wrote: »

So the score remains as follows:

Negatives for alternatives to atheism - 1
Positives for atheism - 0

As an atheist my position is that theists are wrong. My position is a negative. I can't give you positives for atheism because it's not a positive position. I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting one.

Once again, can you, as devil's advocate, make any positive assertions for abubblism? If not, does that make abubblism less valid?

So you are a gnostic bubblist then? Are they the good reasons? If so then they are not very strong arguments. I don't think you can compare those reasons with the good reasons to believe that there is a God unless you think that religion is made up purely of gnostics.

You're missing the point entirely. Refer to the question above ^ .

Soul Winner

Dave! wrote: »

I think that makes you an atheist :pac:

Ok what about these ones? Apparently there are made from the hides of pets that have past on. They look warm if nothing else :cool:

Zillah

That's both creepy and sweet.

Soul Winner

Zillah wrote: »

As an atheist my position is that theists are wrong.

Wrong about what exactly? That there is a God or what they believe to be God is wrong? Or Both? If both then you would have to know a lot of stuff about many religions to be able to pick apart each strand of their beliefs and prove them false. Or you would just need scientific proof that God does not exist, which we don't have yet. You might believe it will come in time but that is just another belief. Me on the other hand only need to know that Christianity is false. I don't need any other religion. Jesus is different. He's personal and leaves you no grounds to claim that He was not who He claimed to be without studying Him first. I have and am convinced that He was who He claimed to be.

Zillah wrote: »

My position is a negative. I can't give you positives for atheism because it's not a positive position. I'm not making a claim, I'm rejecting one.

On what grounds do you reject the idea that a supernatural God exists outside of space and time as described in the Bible? I respect that you don't believe it but I can't respect your reasons for not believing it. Saying it is impossible based on naturalistic observations is probably a good ground for not believing it but not good grounds for categorically stating that there is no such entity when this is unprovable by our present capability. You're probably right but you don't know that yet. I don't know that there is a God, I just believe very strongly that there is and have good reasons for my belief.

Zillah wrote: »

Once again, can you, as devil's advocate, make any positive assertions for abubblism? If not, does that make abubblism less valid?

I can't make any positive assertions for abubblism until bubblism is properly defined and explained to me first. I don't reject bubblism yet. To know whether a bubble of glass surrounds the universe from our limited point of observation would take scientific instrumentation beyond current capability to deduce. All I can say is that I don't believe it to be the case until it is proven beyond question that it is. I can give good reasons why I don't believe it, reasons that strongly suggest that it is not the case. Given what we know about the laws of physics that exist in the universe and assuming that current scientific data is correct then it is impossible to have a bubble of glass surrounding the universe. Why? Because of the chemical make up of glass, its brittle nature and so on, it is highly unlikely that our (as we now know) ever expanding faster and faster (faster than the speed of light) universe could be surrounded by such a substance. We would need to be surfing on the crest of the wave of the ever expanding universe in order to be able to take measurements and samples from its edge to determine whether or not what surrounds the universe is glass or nay. I think our current understanding of physics is enough to be able to lay to bed the notion that a substance such as solid glass could conceivably surround our ever expanding universe.

Zillah

Ok, we can't hijack this thread by turning it into another "I believe God exists" versus "I don't" argument. My only point at the moment is that you can't argue against an unfalsifiable claim without sounding negative. Atheism is defined by its opposition to a positive claim. I don't believe God exists, I can't prove he doesn't exist, all I can do is attack the bad arguments people use to support that claim.

Galvasean

Soul Winner wrote: »

What about a Chartiy debate then? :pac:

Surely taking part in such a debate would be an act of charity in itself?

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I think the thing you're supposed to do in a debate is to show up your opponents arguments for the dumbness they are with respectful positive arguments of one's own. Smiting your opponent because you find his arguments dumb is a primitive neanderthalistic approach to resolving an issue.

I never said I was good at debating :pac: ... I don't think Dawkins is particularly good either, he (like me) tends to get very annoyed when the other side are being stupid.

Soul Winner wrote: »

Me thinks that you actually find Craig's arguments very strong and the fact that you have no retort just leaves you resentful resulting in lashing out violently with one's fists.

I think that is the point.

Craig comes up with arguments that sound like they can't be reasoned against. That is because the arguments are nonsense and it is actually very difficult to argue against nonsense, beyond pointing out that it is nonsense which the person using it, or the people observing, have to accept for that to be an argument.

Like saying if there is a start to the universe their must be a creator and that creator probably is God.

Such an argument is structured in such a way as to put the responsibility for countering it on the opposition by demonstrating that if there was a start to the universe that start had nothing to do with God. Which they can't do. No one has a clue what was "before" the start of the universe, Christian and Atheist alike.

But the point is they shouldn't have to, because there is no argument for the assertion that if there was a start their must be a creator. That is one of these silly arguments that is just assumed to be true by people who don't think to hard about things.

It is assumed to be true because it maps back to ordinary human interaction. There is a car, someone made it. There is a house, someone made it. There is a universe, someone made it. It is one of these "common sense" arguments.

Craig drags the arguments down into the mud of nonsense and then kicks everyone's asses because down at that level he makes the rules up as he goes.

To argue against him the opposition has to explain that "common sense" doesn't hold. The universe doesn't work the way we think it should. There are multiple examples of this, but they are all very technical. You have lost the audience as soon as you start mentioning locality and relativity.

Mean while Craig is standing there shouting "Its all COMMON SENSE", which as an argument works on a surprisinginly large amount of people.

So the opposition is left with no recourse to give him a smack ... :pac:

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I never said I was good at debating :pac: ... I don't think Dawkins is particularly good either, he (like me) tends to get very annoyed when the other side are being stupid.



I think that is the point.

Craig comes up with arguments that sound like they can't be reasoned against. That is because the arguments are nonsense and it is actually very difficult to argue against nonsense, beyond pointing out that it is nonsense which the person using it, or the people observing, have to accept for that to be an argument.

Like saying if there is a start to the universe their must be a creator and that creator probably is God.

Such an argument is structured in such a way as to put the responsibility for countering it on the opposition by demonstrating that if there was a start to the universe that start had nothing to do with God. Which they can't do. No one has a clue what was "before" the start of the universe, Christian and Atheist alike.

But the point is they shouldn't have to, because there is no argument for the assertion that if there was a start their must be a creator. That is one of these silly arguments that is just assumed to be true by people who don't think to hard about things.

It is assumed to be true because it maps back to ordinary human interaction. There is a car, someone made it. There is a house, someone made it. There is a universe, someone made it. It is one of these "common sense" arguments.

Craig drags the arguments down into the mud of nonsense and then kicks everyone's asses because down at that level he makes the rules up as he goes.

To argue against him the opposition has to explain that "common sense" doesn't hold. The universe doesn't work the way we think it should. There are multiple examples of this, but they are all very technical. You have lost the audience as soon as you start mentioning locality and relativity.

Mean while Craig is standing there shouting "Its all COMMON SENSE", which as an argument works on a surprisinginly large amount of people.

So the opposition is left with no recourse to give him a smack ... :pac:

That's very smelly. I will retort when of soberer mind. Good night..

aidan24326

Soul Winner wrote: »

On what grounds do you reject the idea that a supernatural God exists outside of space and time as described in the Bible?

For a start, how about the fact that the bible has been hopelessly wrong on just about everything else? As a book to be taken factually it fails over and over again, not to mention the notion that it's supposedly the word of an all-knowing god (must have been drunk that day). Seriously Soul Winner come out of the clouds. Whatever your reasons for believing in a supernatural god please for the love of <insert preferred god here> don't use the bible as a reference for that book is just about the biggest mishmash of hogwash and falsehoods ever put to print.

You're probably right but you don't know that yet. I don't know that there is a God, I just believe very strongly that there is and have good reasons for my belief.

'Good' reasons according to who? Yourself? I'd have thought a good reason to believe something was that it can be shown through objective unbiased evidence to be highly likely to be true. It might make you feel better but that says nothing about whether it's objectively true or not.

I can't make any positive assertions for abubblism until bubblism is properly defined and explained to me first

Don't you see the beatiful irony in this? You are happy to make positive assertions about the existence of a supernatural god and I'll be damned if you can come up with a coherent definition of what that god might be. You can't, simple as. Therefore I can readily dismiss your belief in a supernatural god as nonsense since this supernatural god is undefinable anyway, and is thus a useless concept to begin with.

I don't have to say 'there is no god', for I can just as easily say god who? god what? where? What the feck are you even talking about?

edit: sorry if this is continuing on an off-topic tangent. What was the topic again? Oh yeah, Dawkins. Him again. God bless his holiness.