Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse

Skeptiko forums moved

The official forums of the Skeptiko podcast have moved to http://skeptiko.com/forum/.
As such, these forums are now closed for posting.
See more
See less

Debate possibilities

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Debate possibilities

    I know this has been threaded before, but if Skeptiko offered slightly moderate debates, who would you like to see?

    I would like to see either:

    Sheldrake v. Dawkins

    Long V. Watt

    B. Alan Wallace v. Randi


    Yeah, kind of wishful thinking on some of those, but still, a boy can hope.

  • #2
    Oh, and

    Steve Volk V. the World

    Comment


    • #3
      William Lane Craig or Edward Feser vs. Richard Dawkins (Author of The God Delusion)

      http://subversivethinking.blogspot.c...ane-craig.html
      Craig is a seasoned debater, a prominent philosopher of religion and a professional theologian; and Dawkins' only expertise is in zoology and biological sciences.

      Obviously, Dawkins is not so s[xxxx]d to cross swords with a professional philosopher in the latter field of expertise, especially when Dawkins' argument for the improbability of God has been refuted by Craig and other philosophers, and it is not defended by any prominent and well-informed atheist philosopher of religion.
      http://subversivethinking.blogspot.c...ation-and.html
      I predict that this debate won't happen, because Dawkins (if he knows who Feser is) won't accept the challenge.
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...iam-lane-craig
      Why I refuse to debate with William Lane Craig [by] Richard Dawkins

      Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either. Perhaps he is a "theologian". For some years now, Craig has been increasingly importunate in his efforts to cajole, harass or defame me into a debate with him. I have consistently refused, in the spirit, if not the letter, of a famous retort by the then president of the Royal Society: "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine".
      ...
      You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered.
      ...
      Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him?
      It might be an interesting kind of debate if Dawkins would accept. Craig or Feser would probably discuss the philosophical arguments for the existence of God. I wonder if Dawkins would defend the arguments in his book The God Delusion or if he would instead discuss the academic status and moral character of his opponent the way he attacks Craig in the excerpt above.
      Last edited by anonymous; April 17th, 2012, 12:57 AM.

      Comment


      • #4
        "That would look great on your CV, not so good on mine", shows how stuck in his petty, hierarchical world Dawkins is. He imagines himself as a world champion pugilist and only other champions are worthy of his time. Intellectual cowardice brushed away with a typically unimaginative retort.

        RD knows he'd get an intellectual pasting from WLC and his pomposity pricked by Sheldrake. Zero chance of either happening, unless it was in front of a tame skeptical audience with stooge chairman.

        Comment


        • #5
          If anyone has some links to some already existing interesting debates, that might be good as well.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by NinjaKitty7 View Post
            I know this has been threaded before, but if Skeptiko offered slightly moderate debates, who would you like to see?

            I would like to see either:

            Sheldrake v. Dawkins
            Better idea still make it Sheldrake versus Dawkins, Wiseman, Watt, Shermer, Randi, 20 CSIcop fellows and 20 JREF fellows ....all at once .... Rupert Sheldrake would still win the debate
            Last edited by Open Mind; April 17th, 2012, 06:53 AM.

            Comment


            • #7
              If you look past Richard Dawkin's arrogance (it's hard I know), then it might be seen that he has a good point regarding the genocide of the Canaanites. If William Lane Craig is really justifying genocide by the command of God, then why should he give him a platform? For WLC's point to stand you have to assume many things, some of them being that God exists, that God is a necessary being, that the moral teachings of God and the Bible are absolute, that what would normally be viewed as evil is made ok because the supreme being has ordered it and many other assumptions torturously woven together. What we might see is WLC's excellent rhetorical skills being put to use as an exercise in appeasement for what could viewed as the terrorisation of the human species in the Old Testament. Not a debate I'd like to see.

              I agree that Sheldrake might be interesting.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Vesalius View Post
                If you look past Richard Dawkin's arrogance (it's hard I know), then it might be seen that he has a good point regarding the genocide of the Canaanites. If William Lane Craig is really justifying genocide by the command of God, then why should he give him a platform?
                Because materialism doesn't provide any way to define good and evil so it is hypocritical for a materialist to make moral arguments?

                Isn't it a form of bigotry to refuse to debate someone simply because of their religious beliefs?

                Dawkins wrote a book called The God Delusion. Who is he going to debate if he won't debate people who believe in God? Is he only going to debate people who have religious views meet with his approval? In that case he may only agree to debate people with views that he can defeat.

                For WLC's point to stand you have to assume many things, some of them being that God exists, that God is a necessary being, that the moral teachings of God and the Bible are absolute, that what would normally be viewed as evil is made ok because the supreme being has ordered it and many other assumptions torturously woven together. What we might see is WLC's excellent rhetorical skills being put to use as an exercise in appeasement for what could viewed as the terrorisation of the human species in the Old Testament. Not a debate I'd like to see.

                I agree that Sheldrake might be interesting.

                I think if you read some of Craig's writings you would see that he has strong arguments about the existence of God that refute the opinions in the book Dawkins wrote. It looks like Dawkins is grasping at straws because he doesn't want to get creamed in a debate.

                If you are interested Craig's web site had a lot of his work on-line.

                http://www.reasonablefaith.org/does-...aig-law-debate

                Now in tonight’s debate I’m going to defend two basic contentions:

                1. There are good reasons to think that God exists.

                and

                2. There are not comparably good reasons to think that atheism is true.

                ...
                Last edited by anonymous; April 17th, 2012, 06:11 PM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X