by dark angle 39 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
SBF.. I laughed at that as well..
I'm at 45 minutes in and I dont know if I can take any more...
The host does have a few JWisms in his speech...
(edit 15 minutes later ).... Just finished it. I thought it was a pretty civilized debate. I really appreciated how RD held his tongue and didnt eat they host alive :)
cheers
caliber:
Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it—each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is: "the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms – the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."
That is a very poor argument. For instance, i could claim that Gnomes, Aliens, Wizards or the number 3 made the universe, but it would hardly be very impressive if i pointed out to someone that he was "comitting to the view" the number 3 did not cause the universe. What else should he do?
The fundamental problem in the argument is that there is a million potential explanations for the universe, and thus it require positive evidence in order for us to accept one above all the rest. If there is no positive evidence, it is perfectly reasonable for the atheist (or a-number-3-ist) not to accept it.
Your welcome.
i didn't actually know that Howard Conder was an ex JW until you pointed out in wiki. that's interesting.
However, i found it appaling that very religious famous persons have very little awareness of some basic scientific findings such as the evolution of the eye and how we develope waste disposal systems. :)
It seems that very religious people have very dull analytic & common sense skills to see that a God needs to kill his own son to forgive others. whats making it worse, the bible advocates forgiveness as a virtue, yet at the same time extolls a God that cannot forgive unless someone dies for it. Its some sort of mad thinking.
Also, i think if adam was sentenced to death at the time he & his wife ate the fruit, then the payment was satisfied for Gods' justice. why kill another person? why God credited the sin to his offspring?
If sin can be passed through dna, why can't an all powerful magic God correct the genetic "defect"?
As time passess by, the more i think, the more it seems apparent that a magic God in the heavens looks astonishingly stupid idea to based our belief system much more to dedicate our entire life to such belief.
Dawkins is a very gracious man, he is confronted with pure stupidity and keeps both his and the idiot interviewer's dignity with his answers.
Agree!
@ slimboyfat & darthfader
LOL 25 minutes in.
HC: Not to be too personal, but how do I take a leak if I need to wait millions of years to do that?
RD: Wait a minute, I don't understand
HC: Well you know, if I was to go to the toilet, how did we evolve with the ability to release waste? If we were waiting millions of years for certain organs to evolve. That is a simple question but I am a simple man.
SBF.. I laughed at that as well..
I'm at 45 minutes in and I dont know if I can take any more...
The host does have a few JWisms in his speech...
(edit 15 minutes later ).... Just finished it. I thought it was a pretty civilized debate. I really appreciated how RD held his tongue and didnt eat they host alive :)
Yep, that part was hilarious. also the part where RD sees the son-sacrificing idea as hideous.
On the other hand i like how this debate ended, both men were shows great respect & civilized.
I enjoyed this video. Thanks for posting it.
One can imagine the frustrations and the restraint on exhibit in this exchange. I think this is a positive dialogue and that more is needed.
I did have to laugh a few times at RD's face. He was REALLY holding back. It was funny too that the eye came up, since he dedicated an entire chapter to it in The Blind Watchmaker. For that matter, most of the points covered in the interview were covered in the book. I understand the guy had a tragedy and couldn't do any current reading for the interview. But he hasn't done ANY reading---so the interview couldn't progress to any meaningful level. If the interviewer knows so little about RD, why in the world was he compelled to set up what could have been a really impressive interview/debate.
Anyway, I've always liked how RD is able to explain complicated things in language I can understand.
NC
But yet he runs and hides from William Lane Craig?
I don't particularly agree with those who think it was a positive exchange. The religious guy's main objective was to present an image of himself as reasonable, he was not really interested in discussing the issues at all. I prefer interlocutors to be straight talking and to the point, not pussyfooting around, purely interested in creating a certain impression. Plus he barely seemed to know who Dawkins was or anything about him apart from that he is famous and he is an atheist.
But yet he runs and hides from William Lane Craig?
LOL! Indeed. He and other atheists seem to avoid directly engaging Craig like the plague.
