|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 05/12/2007 : 18:21:42 [Permalink]
|
If people are still looking for a link to this debate here it is:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1
After seeing it I don't think anything good came out of this. While both sides did make good points (one side making more then the other) these where not the best people to be debating this. I think both sides will think they have won, and really it is hard to see if any did. I don't think many people beliefs will be changed by this. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
 |
|
|
Roddy
New Member
Panama
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 08:01:20 [Permalink]
|
I think that people expected the Christians to kick the atheists' ass.
It didn't happen though.
The worst thing that can happen now is that ABC and other networks will no longer host debates like this for fear of atheism/agnosticism growing in numbers, or, worse, the media may be even more afraid of atheists/agnostics and censor everything that can be in their favor. It wouldn't be the first time, would it? |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:36:24 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Roddy
I think that people expected the Christians to kick the atheists' ass.
It didn't happen though.
The worst thing that can happen now is that ABC and other networks will no longer host debates like this for fear of atheism/agnosticism growing in numbers, or, worse, the media may be even more afraid of atheists/agnostics and censor everything that can be in their favor. It wouldn't be the first time, would it?
|
Interesting. I'm my opinion, it could go either way, but there are bound to be some greedy pundits in the media and merchandising who are even now researching this "new" atheist demographic that they'd somehow missed, and are trying to dream up ways to commercially appeal to it, and cash in on it. (Hmmm, a "Moonscape" idea.)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/13/2007 15:51:12 |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/13/2007 : 15:49:49 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Paulos23
If people are still looking for a link to this debate here it is:
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=3148940&page=1
After seeing it I don't think anything good came out of this. While both sides did make good points (one side making more then the other) these where not the best people to be debating this. I think both sides will think they have won, and really it is hard to see if any did. I don't think many people beliefs will be changed by this.
|
The point is, atheism starts at a near zero respect level in America's consciousness. After this debate, at a minimum, there are thousands of atheists who perceived an atheist victory and will be more open and aggressive about expressing their beliefs in the future.
Remember, too, that just as atheists are probably vastly under-reported in polls (for the good reason of persecution), there are bound to be even more doubting theists and fence-sitters, who will be affected by such debates.
Also, the now-waning NeoCon theocractic excess in this country has, IMO, spawned a huge backlash both to the fundies and to religion in general. Moderate religions will come to regret that they did not speak out more loudly against the theonazis, as religion in general will be the loser.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/13/2007 15:52:21 |
|
|
|
Paulos23
Skeptic Friend
USA
446 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 20:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
[brThe point is, atheism starts at a near zero respect level in America's consciousness. After this debate, at a minimum, there are thousands of atheists who perceived an atheist victory and will be more open and aggressive about expressing their beliefs in the future.
|
I am not sure atheists being more aggressive about their "beliefs" is going to be a good thing, but it would be nice to be a little more open about it.
Remember, too, that just as atheists are probably vastly under-reported in polls (for the good reason of persecution), there are bound to be even more doubting theists and fence-sitters, who will be affected by such debates.
|
True, I just wish they saw the A-game from both sides. I agree, from the center it looks like the atheists won. Heck, they won when the theists started preaching half way through their opening statement, that surely got some people to rethink their positions. But I don't think it will change as many minds as many people are hoping.
Also, the now-waning NeoCon theocractic excess in this country has, IMO, spawned a huge backlash both to the fundies and to religion in general. Moderate religions will come to regret that they did not speak out more loudly against the theonazis, as religion in general will be the loser.
|
Truth. |
You can go wrong by being too skeptical as readily as by being too trusting. -- Robert A. Heinlein
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 21:02:20 [Permalink]
|
I would like to see that "A game," too. One of the problems in that is that the most intellectual theists may not be willing to debate, though I may be wrong on this.
I imagine having a panel of three debaters on each side.
For the theists, I'd imagine their dream team might be a brilliant Jesuit theologist who once was a street thug, a learned and articulate rabbinical scholar, and the "best" theologist and speaker that one of the large moderate Protestant denominations could produce.
Against that frightening lineup, put whom? One, IMO would have to be Richard Dawkins, who not only has the ideas, but can think fast on his feet, and can viciously deconstruct an opponent's ideas while remaining composed and polite. Maybe throw in one of the hipper types, from Skepticality, or Rational Response Squad, or Penn Jillette, and then, maybe, James Randi?
I'm pretty open to ideas for the Atheist Debate Dream Team, except I think Dawkins should be on it.
And any such debate should be negotiated with strong rules to assure fairness, a balanced audience, time to give complete statements, and time to respond thoroughly to one's opponent.
I'd love to see that debate!
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/14/2007 : 22:05:08 [Permalink]
|
Atheist team:
Richard Dawkins
Christopher Hitchens (he's a conservative prick, but his position on religion and atheism are on the money, imo)
Sam Harris
They would shred any theist/deist team.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Roddy
New Member
Panama
48 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 05:01:45 [Permalink]
|
I'd like to see these theists debating:
Pat Robertson, O'Reilly, Bob Dornan, and that Bible debater Craig something (he uses the Bible to debate, and has gone as far as asking atheists how come every universal constant is perfect for the universe and life to exist -- for example, if gravity was higher, every star would collapse under its own weight, if the force by which atoms repel each other was higher, stars would not exist because hydrogen atoms wouldn't be able to get together -- a question some atheists fear even more than any attack against evolution. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 08:06:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Roddy
I'd like to see these theists debating:
Pat Robertson, O'Reilly, Bob Dornan, and that Bible debater Craig something (he uses the Bible to debate, and has gone as far as asking atheists how come every universal constant is perfect for the universe and life to exist -- for example, if gravity was higher, every star would collapse under its own weight, if the force by which atoms repel each other was higher, stars would not exist because hydrogen atoms wouldn't be able to get together -- a question some atheists fear even more than any attack against evolution.
|
Atheists fear this question? Hardly. In fact, some of us love these kind of silly arguments, because they point out the desperation, poverty, and ignorance of the theist opposition. It's not as side-splittingly silly as Comfort's Banana Thesis, but it is quite meaningless.
There may (or may not) be a myriad of universes, in which each of these natural factors is different from ours. Some combinations of basic natural force constants may result in universes which cannot produce stars, planets, or life. Another combination of forces may result in a totally bizarre universe (by our standard) which nevertheless supports some version of life.
The fact that we can have this discussion, are made of functional carbon-based organic chemicals, and stand on the land surface of a mild, watery planet, stably orbiting in the habitable zone of a stable star, is considered by many scientists to be a result the anthropic principle. To break it down, of course we observe a universe capable of sustaining life (at least here and there), or we would not be here to observe it.
The two theists I recognize among your debate team suggestions are mad-men and/or morons. (Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, but it's not an either/or proposition.) I'm sure there are some smart, even relatively sane theists to defend the existence of a god. It would be unfair to debate people of such low mental calibre. It's not sporting to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/15/2007 08:17:05 |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 11:21:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The two theists I recognise among your debate team suggestions are mad-men and/or morons. (Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, but it's not an either/or proposition.) I'm sure there are some smart, even relatively sane theists to defend the existence of a god. It would be unfair to debate people of such low mental calibre. It's not sporting to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent. |
None the less, these two morons are the ones that are among the most visible among them.
Dismantling them, to show them for the morons they are, serve to remove their influence. And that is a good thing. They have the power to direct people. If they can be discredited, people wouldn't take their direction as easily, but realise the importance of being sceptical to what they are fed.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 12:15:06 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by HalfMooner
To break it down, of course we observe a universe capable of sustaining life (at least here and there), or we would not be here to observe it. |
You know, I've never even ever really understood what point theists think they're making when they present this argument. "If things were different, then things would have ended up differently."
Yeah? So? What the hell is that supposed to "prove?"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:07:47 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Originally posted by HalfMooner
To break it down, of course we observe a universe capable of sustaining life (at least here and there), or we would not be here to observe it. |
You know, I've never even ever really understood what point theists think they're making when they present this argument. "If things were different, then things would have ended up differently."
Yeah? So? What the hell is that supposed to "prove?"
|
Really, the Anthropic Principle is a tautology, and indeed proves or explains nothing. It's merely a "no, duh!" observation, and a weak argument at best.
It can be (ab)used by Intelligent Design proponents and other mystics with intent to baffle. But it can also be used in arguments (though not as scientific evidence) that life is likely elsewhere in the universe, and that this cosmos tends to create an organization of mass and energy that passes, at least fleetingly, through a state that includes the existance of both theists and atheists capable of slinging tautologies about.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2007 : 18:28:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by HalfMooner
The two theists I recognise among your debate team suggestions are mad-men and/or morons. (Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference, but it's not an either/or proposition.) I'm sure there are some smart, even relatively sane theists to defend the existence of a god. It would be unfair to debate people of such low mental calibre. It's not sporting to have a battle of wits against an unarmed opponent. |
None the less, these two morons are the ones that are among the most visible among them.
Dismantling them, to show them for the morons they are, serve to remove their influence. And that is a good thing. They have the power to direct people. If they can be discredited, people wouldn't take their direction as easily, but realise the importance of being sceptical to what they are fed.
|
I bet Dawkins and others could provide a list of the more formidable (or at least more intellectually slippery) potential opponents. Ultimately, the theists should ideally get to select their own team, even if they were idiots. It's not for us to choose their champions, but I think they would have a greater difficulty in agreeing to their team than we atheists would to our own, despite our "cat herd" self-image.
For instance, I have no objection to Dude's idea of including a political conservative -- or even more than one -- on "our" team. This is about God vs No-God, not about other issues, and such an inclusion would help to clarify that. Atheism is far from being an exclusive plot of lefties. I would hope the atheist team would be diverse, aside from their strong atheism. (Please, on this team, none of what Dawkins calls PAPs, or Permanent Agnostics in Principle!)
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
skeptic griggsy
Skeptic Friend
USA
77 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2007 : 09:19:26 [Permalink]
|
 Halfmooner, I am with you!I would hope both sides would be top-notch.Let their side have Hick,Platinga and Swinburne. The anthropic principle and the probabilty argument suffer from begging the question that God had us in mind when natural selection just built us out of the materials on hand.Also if the parameters wer different,there could be other forms of life.  |
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not a dead Galilean fanatic. |
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 05/19/2007 : 14:51:01 [Permalink]
|
I've checked out the Rational Responders web site. It seems that ABC went and edited the tape to make the sides look more even than they really were.
UPDATE
Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion. |
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
ABC Nightline Debate
