Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yeah, I think a lot of it depends on the crowd and the venue.
Fair point.
Originally posted by Omega VisionObviously there's not a single theist debater who's going to "win" a debate against a half-competent atheist debater in a normal public American university whereas the reverse is true at a religious institution like Brigham Young.
Christoper Hitchens apparently disagreed with you:
Hitchens on William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3:44 to 4:33 mark)
Originally posted by Mindship
Would make a great T-shirt set.
There's a high-res version floating out there. It could probably be done quite easily.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Christoper Hitchens apparently disagreed with you:Hitchens on William Lane Craig
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3:44 to 4:33 mark)
He was complimenting his opponent; nothing more. OV's point was about venue and the perception of the audience.
Originally posted by DigiOV's point was about venue and the perception of the audience.
Exactly.
Hitchens made it clear, however, that he regarded Craig as formidable REGARDLESS of venue or who happened to be listening:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I've only had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Craig once ... we were on a panel together ...
but it was a large unwieldy panel, so I didn't get the sense of his ... his form ...
I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously ...
He is thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very thoughtful ...
I say that without reserve ... I don't say it because I'm here ...
Normally, I don't get people saying "Good Luck, Tonight!" and "Don't let us down!" ... but with him I do. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3 minute 44 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Exactly.Hitchens made it clear, however, that [b]he
regarded Craig as formidable REGARDLESS of venue or who happened to be listening:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
" I've only had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Craig once ... we were on a panel together ...
but it was a large unwieldy panel, so I didn't get the sense of his ... his form ...
I can tell you that my brothers and sisters and co-thinkers in the unbelieving community take him very seriously ...
He is thought of as a very tough guy: very rigorous, very scholarly, very thoughtful ...I say that without reserve ... I don't say it because I'm here ...
Normally, I don't get people saying "Good Luck, Tonight!" and "Don't let us down!" ... but with him I do. "
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_PGa6PO79Q
(3 minute 44 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark) [/B]
Ok. It's pretty common to be complimentary to your opponent like that. I wouldn't try to read too deeply into it. He thinks Craig is a good debater. It doesn't change how an audience will react if it's already heavily in favor of one side or another, which was OV's point.
Originally posted by Digi
Ok. It's pretty common to be complimentary to your opponent like that. I wouldn't try to read too deeply into it. He thinks Craig is a good debater. It doesn't change how an audience will react if it's already heavily in favor of one side or another, which was OV's point.
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.
*131
Originally posted by dadudemon
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.*131
Funny, having a glass of Johnny Walker Black Label with him was on my list. Not really, but it should have been.
Also, and I mean this respectfully, but he would eviscerate you.
Originally posted by dadudemonThat is so strange. His wish was to debate you before his death, alas he could not.
Semi-related but I was very sad when Hitchens died. I wanted to have one debate/discussion with him. Having a debate with him was on my bucket list of things to do before I go to heaven*.*131
The Four Horsemen
Originally posted by DigiThis thread is a discussion about notable atheist figures; their ideas, debates, books, discussions, quotes, positions, etc.
One can scarcely mention, say, Richard Dawkins without derailing other threads ...
Originally posted by DigiThese guys all say enough stuff, and they're all so uncompromising, that finding quotes to use against them isn't hard.
I'm interested in how you're using the word "uncompromising".
In regards to Richard Dawkins, at least, I don't think he is, else you have a definition of that word that is different from common usage.
Dawkins demonstrably changes in his thinking over time.
Compromises and meets the opposition halfway.
You can say, alternately, "Qualifies his statements when shown to be in error", if you prefer.
Observe what Dawkins says in the following video, for instance.
Note the follow-up censure by Ravi Zacharias, a figure well-known enough for Dawkins to have taken notice of the message and have adjusted accordingly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPlqjziNFdA
2 minutes 40 seconds
------------
Straightforward enough.
Dawkins' "publicly ridicule them with contempt" speech in the video above parallels the sentiment of the "T-Shirt" quote in your opening post.
("I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with NOT understanding the world."😉
No distinctions among the world's religions made in either case.
Nothing redeemable about any of them were you to go off those quotes and take them at face value.
Not a complete picture, though.
As I said before, there IS a difference among religions, there IS a difference among belief systems and what manifests from them, there IS cause for judging among those belief systems, and the man that ignores this fact is ignoring reality.
Subsequent to Ravi's online response, Dawkins reveals even he is honest enough to admit that much and that there are some redeeming qualities to some religions after all.
Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
(3 minute 35 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I would be thoroughly in favor of education in the Bible as literature.
You can't understand English Literature without the Bible.
You can't take your allusions ...
This IS a Christian country, historically it's a Christian country,
You can't understand English History or English Literature without a knowledge of the Bible.
...
By the way, I should say, the act of collective worship, I don't approve of it, but nevertheless:
The Christian religion ... is benign by comparison ...
The penalty for apostasy in the Christian religion is not death.
There is no penalty for apostasy at all in the Christian religion.
The Christian religion is comparatively benign, and we should respect it as such." -- Richard Dawkins
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Digi
Funny, having a glass of Johnny Walker Black Label with him was on my list. Not really, but it should have been.
That actually makes sense and he would probably be more likely to take you up on that offer than mine.
Originally posted by Digi
Also, and I mean this respectfully, but he would eviscerate you.
Probably.*
But would your jimmies get rustled if Michael Jordan beat you in a 1 on 1 basketball game, assuming this was 1994 Jordan?
That's how I view it: spending time with someone I admired and adored.
*I have the benefit of knowing most of his arguments and having formed rebuttals to them, long ago. He didn't. I also think many of his theistic peers failed horribly in their debates with him and I would have had much better responses for him. Also, we agree on many of his points so he would have an uphill battle to destroy many of my positions. 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, go baptize him so you can still have that debate in heaven. 😛
😆 😆 😆
I love you.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Dawkins demonstrably changes in his thinking over time.
Compromises and meets the opposition halfway.
I like what you're trying to do but I should point out that Dawkins doing the above is actually a really really good thing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
*I have the benefit of knowing most of his arguments and having formed rebuttals to them, long ago. He didn't. I also think many of his theistic peers failed horribly in their debates with him and I would have had much better responses for him. Also, we agree on many of his points so he would have an uphill battle to destroy many of my positions. 😄
Heh. That's stacking the deck, though. You're assuming lopsided prep. Why not stipulate that he's incoherently drunk for your debate while you're at it?
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm interested in how you're using the word "uncompromising".In regards to Richard Dawkins, at least, I don't think he is, else you have a definition of that word that is different from common usage.
He wrote "The God Delusion" and filmed a documentary about religion being the root of all evil. I'd say uncompromising as an adjective for him is a pretty unambiguous term. Don't be dense.
Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Richard Dawkins confronts a Muslim who says Islam is peaceful
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Ks4pCO5O8
(3 minute 35 second mark to 4 minute 33 second mark)
So...he's able to make distinctions in severity of religious persecution? He's an intelligent adult; it's not really revelatory. Anyone saying this is a departure for him has only been viewing the media stereotype, not the actual corpus of his literature and other output. This isn't a departure, it's a clarification, because he's used to being portrayed as a caricature of himself.
Notice he says Anglican Christian in your video, though. England is a notoriously less religious country than America. His comments about varying Christian sects would be equally nuanced, depending on the severity of their evil.
Anyway, read what I wrote:
Originally posted by Digi
One popular tactic is to take their arguments against fundamentalism, and paint them as strawman arguments. That's stupid, because they're talking about actual atrocities that exist. The fact that less moderate religious beliefs exist doesn't invalidate arguments specifically pointed at fundamentalism.
Originally posted by Digi[Dawkins] wrote "The God Delusion" and filmed a documentary about religion being the root of all evil. I'd say uncompromising as an adjective for him is a pretty unambiguous term. Don't be dense.
The term "uncompromising" is unambiguous:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
un·com·pro·mis·ing
ˌənˈkämprəˌmīziNG/
adjective
adjective: uncompromising
showing an unwillingness to make concessions to others, especially by changing one's ways or opinions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The term "uncompromising" in relation to Richard Dawkins, is also, however, inaccurate.
Digi, that documentary you mentioned IS "The God Delusion".
It was originally a 2 part program entitled "The Root of all Evil" airing early 2006.
The book was released later that same year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiHRVb_uE0
Neither of these productions does anything to counter my point.
They support it, if anything.
2006 was more than seven years ago.
Dawkins has made demonstrable concessions to others and changed his ways or opinions since then.
I suspect part of that is the censure he's received over the years not only from theists and the general public, but even from those who might otherwise seek to aid him in his goals.
Exhibit A was Ravi Zacharias.
You saw that yesterday, watching Dawkins go in a few months from saying religious people should be mocked with ridicule in public, to watching Dawkins say that some religions are benign compared to others and should be respected.
Exhibit D, however, is one Neil de Grasse Tyson, who will likely prove useful for illustrating other points:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxff0k_TEzI
(2 minutes 29 seconds)
Originally posted by Omega VisionSo, I've seen some buzz on Youtube from Christian and other Theist apologists that Sam Harris "lost" a debate with William Lane Craig.
I haven't had the time to see the video, but can anyone else tell me why people would say that?
I'm not familiar with anyone saying Sam Harris lost a debate with William Lane Craig.
I AM familiar with people saying Christopher Hitchens lost a debate with Craig.
If you ever do visit YouTube and type in "Hitchens Craig" and view the comments on that debate, you can see even espoused atheists admitting as much.
William Craig himself comments on that meeting:
(William Lane Craig on Christopher Hitchens: post debate thoughts parts 1&2)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYyKmOCMBSs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSe3-90Xptc
I found the above interesting for a number of reasons.
I'm forced to ponder whether Hitchens increasingly ill health had anything to do with how well he presented back then. I am not sure when Hitchens would have been diagnosed as I type this. Either knowledge of his condition or physical symptoms could have served as understandable distractions from public speaking.
Also of interest, if Craig is to be believed, is Hitchens surprise at the "new" movement of apologetics sweeping through religion.
Finally, at the close of part 2 of Craig's commentary, it is interesting to note
Craig's relation that Richard Dawkins had been approached multiple times to debate Christian scholars during that time, and indeed even in previous years ... and firmly and flatly denied nearly everyone who asked.
Very interesting this last, another "uncompromising" stance of Dawkins, this one a firm decision not to debate Christian scholars like Craig, considering what actually took place a relatively few months afterwards:
(William Lane Craig on meeting Richard Dawkins)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh8cR1f4L0A
15:27
Things like "less violent religions aren't as bad" are just common sense. We don't need documented proof that he thinks it, or track which day he said it. My point is that He's a staunch atheist, and hasn't changed there. I'm sure he'd also continue to stand by The God Delusion. Go ahead and say he's changed if you want; your insistence on making this point still baffles me. I never brought it up, and fail to see its relevance to anything.
Originally posted by DigiThings like "less violent religions aren't as bad" are just common sense. We don't need documented proof that he thinks it, or track which day he said it. My point is that He's a staunch atheist, and hasn't changed there. I'm sure he'd also continue to stand by The God Delusion. Go ahead and say he's changed if you want; your insistence on making this point still baffles me. I never brought it up, and fail to see its relevance to anything.
Relevance is as follows:
Originally posted by DigiThis thread is a discussion about notable atheist figures; their ideas, debates, books, discussions, quotes, positions, etc. This is different than my "Atheism" thread, in that it's not my personal ideas, but others'. It also covers a societal phenomenon, of which the "Horsemen" are figureheads, not just the ideas themselves.
"The Christian religion is comparatively benign" is an idea of Dawkins, arguably the most famous of the atheists you called "Horsemen".
It is in opposition to the stance of another "Horseman", Sam Harris, who would probably argue that Christians are benign because they don't "know" that they should be violent:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Religious moderation is the product of secular knowledge and scriptural ignorance" -- Sam Harris
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Harris would NOT agree with you that "less violent religions aren't as bad".
He has nearly the opposite view.
It's not "common sense" to him.
He is very different from Dawkins in this respect, and, apparently, different from you.
Your "common sense" is also not, statistically speaking, very common.
The very Wiki article you quoted at the beginning tells us that.
Remember, Richard Dawkins was comparing Christianity to Islam.
THAT is the "more violent" religion he was attacking in that video.
Going by your theory of "common sense", people should be joining the less violent religions in greater numbers and leaving the more violent ones.
Given Dawkins was talking specifically about Christianity and Islam that should mean the ranks of Christians should be INCREASING in number and the ranks of Muslims should be DECREASING in number, no?
Is that what we see?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Atheism is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1] There is uncertainty about how much influence the movement has had on religious demographics, but the increase in atheist groups, student societies, publications and public appearances has coincided with the non-religious being the largest growing demographic, closely followed by Islam and evangelicalism in the US and UK
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/attachment.php?s=&postid=14708034