|
Post by dannym on Aug 14, 2011 19:29:01 GMT
To be fair, I think it's perfectly reasonable for atheists to choose their battles. Regardless of the merits of their position, I'm sure many of them are aware that a public debate with a highly experienced debater is not the best platform for their case. If I were in their position I'd avoid such encounters. Of course, a debate with Craig would not do the like of Dawkins any favours. But then Dawkins should have thought of this when he wrote a book called The God Delusion. Dawkins is fair game, and he ought to, for better or worse, front up and back himself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2011 11:19:42 GMT
The latest news is that Stephen Law will replace Toynbee in the debate with Craig.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Aug 23, 2011 20:06:52 GMT
The latest news is that Stephen Law will replace Toynbee in the debate with Craig. Where have you heard or read that?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2011 17:30:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 25, 2011 0:45:15 GMT
Admittedly I'm speaking from ignorance, but I'd say Law might be a formidable opponent. It is interesting to read the comments (well some of them, they are rather extensive) and note that: - How worried they all seem to be that Craig might win.
- How much they all dislike Craig, and explain away his success on dishonesty, unworthy tactics, etc, rather than any possible merit in any argument he uses.
- They all seem to think they have the killer answer to one of Craig's arguments, and Stephen would benefit from their help.
The existence of God is often portrayed as a very one-sided argument by some non-believers, but truly on both sides we all have a mixture of rationality, fear, wish-fulfilment, emotion, faith and hope.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Aug 29, 2011 15:53:18 GMT
Thanks for the link. I think that Law will give Craig a good run for his money. He is a very able philosophe with a popular touch. He has written a number of books for young people including "The Philosophy Files" which provide a good introduction to issues in philosophy. He also taught philosophy at Heythrop college I believe, a leading Catholic educational institution so he should be familiar with the style of apologetics that Craig is promoting.
|
|
|
Post by hawkinthesnow on Aug 29, 2011 16:00:06 GMT
Admittedly I'm speaking from ignorance, but I'd say Law might be a formidable opponent. It is interesting to read the comments (well some of them, they are rather extensive) and note that: - How worried they all seem to be that Craig might win.
- How much they all dislike Craig, and explain away his success on dishonesty, unworthy tactics, etc, rather than any possible merit in any argument he uses.
- They all seem to think they have the killer answer to one of Craig's arguments, and Stephen would benefit from their help.
The existence of God is often portrayed as a very one-sided argument by some non-believers, but truly on both sides we all have a mixture of rationality, fear, wish-fulfilment, emotion, faith and hope. The seem more worried that Craig might appear to win - not really the same thing. Atheist faith? At one time believers used to accuse non believers of lacking faith - not of possessing it. I am reminded of a fairly popular joke amongst those of us who are subject to the British rail transport system - trains have been cancelled due to leaves on the line - must be the wrong kind of leaves! Atheists must just have the wrong kind of faith!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 30, 2011 19:56:14 GMT
I think that Law will give Craig a good run for his money. He is a very able philosophe with a popular touch. He has written a number of books for young people including "The Philosophy Files" which provide a good introduction to issues in philosophy. He also taught philosophy at Heythrop college I believe, a leading Catholic educational institution so he should be familiar with the style of apologetics that Craig is promoting. Law doesn't impress me at all. I have my eyes on the debate with Milican. He has written papers on philosophy of religion and is a solid Hume scholar. I expect here better atheological ammunition than in the debate with Law.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Sept 4, 2011 19:25:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 20, 2011 10:01:09 GMT
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Oct 20, 2011 10:39:13 GMT
I'm not a big fan of debating as a means of deciding who is correct and who is not - audience perception, strong assertion and verbal tricks often seem to play at least as large a part in who is perceived to 'win' a debate as strength of argument. So anyone who decides they don't want to engage in debate always has a certain smidgeon of sympathy from me, at least. Moreover, although I find that Craig's arguments about the existence of God to be quite good, I also find that his biblical literalism to be a touch grating. No, I don't really like arguments that assert that God did order massacres and God was right to order massacres either. That said, Dawkins' response does sound like a bit of a dodge with a dash of 'desperately trying to take the moral high ground' mixed in...
|
|
|
Post by noons on Oct 20, 2011 12:28:25 GMT
Moreover, although I find that Craig's arguments about the existence of God to be quite good, I also find that his biblical literalism to be a touch grating. No, I don't really like arguments that assert that God did order massacres and God was right to order massacres either. Well, I think Dawkins' response is clever: either God ordered genocide or the Bible is false.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Oct 20, 2011 18:07:03 GMT
Depends how you define "genocide"; it also assumes that the Amalekites etc. were sitting around the campfire making daisychains when those evil Hebrews turned up. I'd like to see Dawkins do a proper analysis of the historical and linguistic context of the passages in question - or even engage with the Christians responses in print or online - but I doubt that'll ever happen. I;d be more than happy to eat my words, mind.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Oct 20, 2011 18:40:33 GMT
Depends how you define "genocide"; it also assumes that the Amalekites etc. were sitting around the campfire making daisychains when those evil Hebrews turned up. I'd like to see Dawkins do a proper analysis of the historical and linguistic context of the passages in question - or even engage with the Christians responses in print or online - but I doubt that'll ever happen. I;d be more than happy to eat my words, mind. Well, however one would describe it, it still seems like a strong argument: either God ordered massacres of civilians who could not defend themselves or the Bible is false.
|
|
|
Post by sandwiches on Oct 20, 2011 19:18:55 GMT
Perhaps depends what you mean by "false"? Is the teaching of Jesus "false" because he taught in parables, rather than telling "true" stories?
|
|