101. Comment #76446 by devolved on October 5, 2007 at 11:14 pm

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science. Religion isn't the problem, people are. If you really, really, really believe that people who wear reading glasses ought to be eliminated to protect the integrity of the species it follows logically that you will act on your belief. You will rationally do terrible things because of your beliefs religious or not.

Other Comments by devolved

102. Comment #76451 by Shuggy on October 5, 2007 at 11:32 pm

102. Comment #76446 by devolved on October 5, 2007

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science. Religion isn't the problem, people are.

But not all people do terrible things. When they do terrible things in the name of science, that can be shown to be a misuse of science, because science says nothing about what people ought to do. And I tend to agree with Samuel Johnson that "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel", but I'm lucky to live on an island.

RD didn't say religion was the only thing people do terrible things in the name of, but religion's job is, or ought to be, to prevent people from doing terrible things, and in fact, ideally, making them do nothing but good things.

Perhaps he and all we infidels are naive in thinking something is more terribly wrong when religion makes people do terrible things, than when something else does. But how come we, and most religious people today, can agree that people of past ages were wrong to do terrible things in the name of religion? Our morality has advanced, and it's no thanks to religion. Example; thanks to evolution, we now know that there are not "higher" and "lower" animals, and bears feel pain as we do. We no longer bait bears with dogs or put them on hot plates to make them "dance". (Yes, some of us still do terrible things to bears, but at least we no longer have that excuse.)

Other Comments by Shuggy

103. Comment #76452 by irate_atheist on October 5, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Re: Comment #76375 by Styrer-

Woof woof.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

104. Comment #76454 by Robert Maynard on October 5, 2007 at 11:36 pm

devolved,

If you really, really, really believe that people who wear reading glasses ought to be eliminated to protect the integrity of the species it follows logically that you will act on your belief. You will rationally do terrible things because of your beliefs religious or not.

True. But as long as people are expected to provide reasons for their beliefs, the paradigm of rational empiricism demands a higher standard before signing off on a belief as correct, as opposed to a paradigm where reasons can come from non-observable places, like gods.
We can't examine whether reasons claimed to be supernatural are actually true, so we can only judge the consequences of these beliefs.

The claim that people with reading glasses pose a threat to the species can be investigated and found (I would predict) to be incorrect.
If someone making this claim is presented with clear and unambiguous information that people with reading glasses are ordinary people, and refuses to amend their opinions and stop making threats - we can definitively call them out as irrational and dangerous to people with glasses, and we are ethically compelled to take measures to limit their power to act on their beliefs.

If they said their knowledge of how evil people with glasses are was not evident in the world itself, but known only to a supernatural agent operating outside the Universe - we can't touch that. We just can't say for sure whether or not it's true. But we have no evidence that people with glasses actually are evil, so the only ethical thing to do is treat them as innocent until proven guilty, and judge the belief by its consequences. If we're wrong about people with glasses, the consequences could be horrible - but we can't act on a possibility just because it can be articulated - we have to be honest with the information we have access to.
Someone claiming that God wants him to kill people who appear to be innocent is a dangerous person, and should be prevented from acting on his beliefs.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

105. Comment #76460 by The Wee Flea on October 6, 2007 at 12:14 am

Many thanks to this website for getting this on so quickly. It is really appreciated.

The comments are very revealing -

As regards Lennox - "Tripe, "I am not even going to try and dissect what was wrong with Lennox"; Lennox is a nut, stupid, refusing to listen because their jobs depend on it (quite how this applies to a Professor of Mathematics is not made clear!); best to shout 'you idiots, morons, stupid' (advice taken by more than a few fundie atheists); sophistry, spews nonsense, Lennox is an 'arsehole'; shoddy excuse of a scientist; a clown; "

As regards the debate itself "Biased format. Richard not used to that kind of audience. Not a debate an ambush; RD needs to brush up on his cosmology; a hostile forum (based upon the joke that Richard was there to announce his conversion in the Bible belt!)"

All of the above means simply, in the words of the Norwegian commentator describing his teams victory over England -"Your boy took a hell of a beating"! Which is why I will be getting the DVD and making it available to as many people as possible -- I suspect that not many atheists will be using this.

Personally I thought the format was awful - but I do not beleive the paranoid conspiracy theorists. Surely it was a format that RD agreed to? He would not be stupid enough to agree to participate in a debate without knowing the format.

The whole thing proved that,unlike Hitchins, RD is not a great debater and explains why he does not get involved in too many of these debates. To start with I was not that impressed with Lennox but when he got going I thought he was brilliant and wiped the floor with RD. His intelligence, scientific knowledge and awareness of RD's arguments were clear. The fact that RD was reduced to repeating the same old arguments clearly gave Lennox an advantage - because he knew what they were going to be!

For those who really want to interact with the debate can I suggest you read Lennox's "God's undertaker - has science buried God?. Just finished it and it is outstandingingly brilliant. providing clear evidence for theism (although not Christianity.

I think the most revealing part of the debate was the very end - with RD's emotive reaction to JL's summary. He could not hide his contempt. This debate is not about 'science, reason, truth etc'. It is about RD's (and many others) hatred of religion. Science is used as a weapon in this battle but when scientists like JL fight back the gloves come off and the real motivation and charcter of the New Atheism becomes clear.

As regards the comments obn this thread just a few thoughts.

Once again we observe the rather nice and cute self defence of the Emperors new clothes. We atheists are the rational logical ones. Anyone who disagrees with us cannot therefore be rational and logical, therefore no matter what they say we will not listen to them because we are the rational ones, they are stupid, which is proven by their not agreeing with the rational position – and so round and round the circular argument goes.

'onclusively answered in RD's book' – why not then answer them at the debate?

As to asking John Lennox to post here if he is interested in real debate. Why? I know him as well – and I would strongly suggest to him that the last thing he should do is post here in order to get real debate. Even the majority of posts on this thread (and I exclude the likes of J and Bonzai) work on the assumption he is a fool, hypocrite, idiot and self evidently wrong. You really do believe that you are smarter than other people because you are atheists. ( witness the hilarious remark that if we were all as smart as Hitchins religion would disappear!) How can he be expected to debate such ignorance and prejudice?

And once again the science/religion divide is taken as a given. Yet it is not. Perhaps Steve99, most people are atheists for emotional rather than scientific reasons? The response to this debate is evidence that for at least some people that statement is true.

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species.

As regards Korea – 200 years ago there were no Christians in Korea – now there are 45%. How does this square with RD's oft repeated assertion (which he worked out when he was 9!) that your religion is determined by your birth. If that were true then surely the Koreas would all still be Buddhist?


Blackhaw your points are valid, logical and empirically verifed on this website. However you should realize that one of the basic beliefs of the atheist creed is that atheists are not fundamentalists and that the reason they do not change their mind is because they know they are right. You will also find that every thing is reinterpreted within the very narrow paradigm of atheist thinking. Thus for example the illustration about spectactles. Dawkins hero (on which he based much of the selfish gene) was Bill Hamilton. Hamilton was a genius of a biologist but had some rather strange beliefs as a result of his science. For example he believed that modern medicine was doing harm because it allowed the weak to survive and thus preserved their genes. His two examples of this were caesarean sections and the glasses worn by John Maynard Smith! Incidentally he also believed that the handicapped should be killed at birth, that genocide was a result of overbreeding and that the only acceptable forms of modern medicine were painkillers and surgery!

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

106. Comment #76462 by Veronique on October 6, 2007 at 12:21 am

25. Comment #76088 by Teratornis

By Zeus, you're a wordy bugger:-). I have never read a short, succinct post from you:-). I think you must be a very serious person.

Loved this post of yours though:-). At least, I now understand what you have had to put yourself through in learning properly how to hatch the successful escape route:-). You make some very cogent points. Thanks.

53. Comment #76190 by Corylus

I had never seen the two Ronnies on this. Great video and very cleverly put together:-). That sort of thing takes heaps of time and lots of wine.

70. Comment #76248 by captain underpants

Thanks for that. I haven't listened to this 'debate' because I couldn't get anything to work and after reading the comments thus far, I was uncertain as to whether I wanted to bother. You have made my mind up for me. Thank you:-).

76. Comment #76280 by Teratornis

Ooh, done it again I see. Good one:-). I have to say I am a smoker hides head and runs into the corner to hide dissonance. On the other hand, I never got caught in the religion paradigm:-). There's hope for me.

I have to stop here to read further. I have just come across Styrer. Golly, gosh. OK. Will post later maybe.

Cheers
V

Other Comments by Veronique

107. Comment #76466 by garbidz on October 6, 2007 at 12:28 am

It is embarrassing for the christian community if this is the best they can come up with. RD is so much further in his reasoning and his scope of knowledge that only the blind self-righteousness of a fanatic christian keeps from seein that the game is elsewhere.

For instance, the idea of good and bad and morals.
From cosmology, physics, biology, one cannot find right or wrong. It takes a human mind to define them. And, not surprisingly, the human minds all over the world seem to come up with similar ideas about them.

In religious thinking, it seems, it is next to impossible to see that there are things that exist in the outside world that have a presentation in our minds. Then there are things that exist only inside of our minds. Other than that, there are things in the outside of our presentations that we'll never have any idea about.

This seems to be one of the main issues.
"Since I have a believe inside of my head, there has to be a somebody who put it there". The craving for an antropomorphic willing subject as the primary force of things happening is understandable looking at our developmental background.

Only biologically oriented mind, however, can see it.
As well as a scientifically oriented mind can see the idiocy of the religious argumentation on the subject of man and his world and how they came about.

Other Comments by garbidz

108. Comment #76469 by Shuggy on October 6, 2007 at 12:35 am

We flee:

As regards Korea – 200 years ago there were no Christians in Korea – now there are 45%. How does this square with RD's oft repeated assertion (which he worked out when he was 9!) that your religion is determined by your birth. If that were true then surely the Koreas would all still be Buddhist?

This is like the anti-evolutionists who ask "If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Other things being equal, people stay in the religion of their birth (and it was really smart of RD to figure that out at 9), but other things are not equal. Christianity is evangelical, Buddhism is not (so far as I know). Some varieties of Christianity are more evangelical than others, and some varieties (notably Catholicism) have changed their evangelicity with time. (At least, no pairs of scrubbed Catholics in suits, or dowdy Catholics dragging along a child, have knocked on my door for many a Saturday morning.)

Other Comments by Shuggy

109. Comment #76470 by Veronique on October 6, 2007 at 12:43 am

97. Comment #76431 by blackhaw

It would help if you could write a coherent comment.

Why to you refer to Lennox as Dr. Lennox and Dawkins and Hitchens without their titles? Your bias started to show here. Your hasty posting leads you to even un-capitalise the first letter of Dawkins' name. Why is this?

You also capitalise the first letter of Christian but fail to do so with Atheist. Why is this?

May I offer to you the SOD definition of 'fundamentalism'.

Fundamentalism. 1923. Strict adherence to traditional orthodox tenets (e.g. the literal inerrancy of Scripture) held to be fundamental to the Christian faith: opposed to liberalism and modernism. Hence Fundamentalist, an adherent of f.

As you undoubtedly realise the SOD brings out a revised edition every ten years or so and incorporates the current nuanced, additional and changed meanings of words that we use daily to communicate in a common language.

I have posted on these threads previously (as has virtually everyone else) that atheism is non-belief in supernatural entities and therefore doesn't not come under the aegis of fundamentalism.

Please post again and be a little more considered with your use of language and, ahem, spelling and grammar. A little logic wouldn't go astray.

If this sounds pompous and like an English teacher's criticisms, then believe me, it is.

Grade C+
V

Other Comments by Veronique

110. Comment #76471 by Robert Maynard on October 6, 2007 at 12:51 am

Wow, The Wee Flea and devolved in the same thread - it's like old times!

The whole thing proved that,unlike Hitchins, RD is not a great debater and explains why he does not get involved in too many of these debates.

I really have to agree. Yet he still presented a better case.

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species.

If he became 'enlightened' by reading Charles Darwin, why did he go on to endorse Trofim Lysenko's explicitly anti-Darwinian science, Lysenkoism, as official state science? This laughable form of pseudo-Lamarckism helped compound the massive crop failures brought on by forced collectivisation. Besides the aforementioned social policy (which also has nothing to do with atheism), Stalin's culpability in the starvation of millions in the USSR is directly traced to his endorsement of an anti-darwinian science. That Stalin was atheist is one claim, that his barbarism was motivated by Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, or the scientific Enlightenment in general, is quite another. Don't try to mislead people with this conflation, David.

200 years ago there were no Christians in Korea – now there are 45%. How does this square with RD's oft repeated assertion (which he worked out when he was 9!) that your religion is determined by your birth.

Mis-representation. It is not claimed that everyones religion is determined by the beliefs of the parents. It has been found however, to be a very strong predictor.
Ironically, if it were true that religious belief is heritable, Korea's change in demographics could be explained as an evolutionary process. If Christian families had more children on average than Buddhist families, the descendants of Christian families would proliferate much faster than Buddhist families, and a tiny demographic could come to represent a larger proportion of the population in a short span of time. We don't have to explain it in these terms though, because religion is not explicitly heritable. Shuggy's mention of Christianity's memetic advantages are also notable.

Unless systematically misleading people happens to be a pastime of yours, please get your facts straight.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

111. Comment #76474 by alovrin on October 6, 2007 at 1:04 am

So the flea has returned when he thinks he has something to crow about. You are so transparent.

Surely it was a format that RD agreed to?

Only RD can answer that question, but his protests throughout the debate would suggest he didnt know of this format till the night.
As for the rest of you post replying only seems to encourage more mouthfoaming by you. You seem to think Lennox was the winner, shows what you know of true debate.
Dont you have some unanswered questions to deal with on a lot of other threads on this site.

Other Comments by alovrin

112. Comment #76481 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:28 am

WEE FLEA
Personally I thought the format was awful -

CARR
SO that is why Wee Flea is going to use this debate and not the interview with McGrath.

Flea admits himself that it was an awful format.

Hence its suitability for his propaganda purposes!

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

113. Comment #76482 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:30 am

LENNOX
Stalin did bad things.

Therefore there is a God.

CARR
Naturally, I paraphrase, but he would have to work on that logic a bit.

Atheist logic is much clearer.

BELIEVER - The lives of Christians have been transformed by the Holy Spirit.

SCEPTIC - You have actually put forward a testable hypothesis. I test it and see that Christians are no better or worse than other people.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

114. Comment #76484 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:32 am

I see Wee Flea posts tons of stuff and still produces no evidence for his beliefs, which include the belief that the creator of the universe was carried around in a box in a desert by a tribe of refugees....

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

115. Comment #76486 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 1:36 am

DEVOLVED
You will rationally do terrible things because of your beliefs religious or not.


CARR
Yes, but Christians will claim that their Holy Book means that people can be killed , man, woman and child because they are 'termites'

Wee Flea says atheists have a hatred of religion.

Christians defend genocide!

That is not going to happen on my watch.

Read http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/10/termites-and-caananites.html

I quote the authors contempt for atheists who think genocide is , on the whole, a bad thing.

'While they accuse Christians of being the ones who are unable to see nuances in positions, a total disregard of the reasoning that the destruction of entire groupings of people may be morally acceptable when taking all factors into account shows a lack of careful thought that it is appalling.'

Wee Flea would be proud of that. Atheists against genocide? How 'appalling'! What a 'lack of careful thought'!

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

116. Comment #76488 by Richard Dawkins on October 6, 2007 at 1:45 am

93. Comment #76391 by Bonzai on October 5, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Duff,

Whoever selected this Lennox clown to go up against Dawkins should be lashed. What a clown!

Ahem..I think Dawkins picked Lennox as his debate opponent himself.

I am genuinely curious to know who started this lie that I picked Lennox. It is completely false. I had never heard of John Lennox when the organizer, Larry Taunton, proposed him to me. My own preference, frequently expressed to Larry, was for an American opponent (unnamed by me, just an American opponent). The idea of flying somebody all the way from Oxford, to debate me coming from Oxford, seemed to me bizarre, and I said so. Larry insisted that Lennox was well known to the Alabama audience, even if he was not well known in Oxford, so I said OK, do what you like.

But please, where does the rumour come from that I picked Lennox?

Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

117. Comment #76489 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 1:50 am

106. Comment by Reverend WeeWee

he also believed that the handicapped should be killed at birth, that genocide was a result of overbreeding and that the only acceptable forms of modern medicine were painkillers and surgery!

You are on record as having stated that you believe natural disasters to be God's punishment for sin. This view is no less disgusting than the one that you cite.

Other Comments by captain underpants

118. Comment #76492 by steve99 on October 6, 2007 at 2:00 am

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science.

The problem is that religion allows people to do nasty things and feel good about it. For example, some people can feel a bit uncomfortable about having those odd gay people around. But hey, they can quote-mine the bible and find bits of the old testament and the odd phrase from the new testament that says 'gay sex is wrong' (of course, they ignore the fact that the bible also contains much about morality that is raving nonsense). So... thanks to religion their dislike of gayness becomes not just acceptable but 'god's will'. Isn't that nice?

Other Comments by steve99

119. Comment #76494 by Robert Maynard on October 6, 2007 at 2:05 am

captain underpants,

This view [regarding natural disasters as divine punishment] is no less disgusting than the one that you cite.

Much less, I think. Identifying and aborting individuals with handicaps so severe that their existence will be nothing but suffering, is an unfortunate but compassionate gesture.
The only important thing to note is that neither I nor Bill Hamilton nor the state have the right to make that decision for a couple, so what 'should' be done with invalids isn't really a question we're fit to answer.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

120. Comment #76495 by mejdrich on October 6, 2007 at 2:08 am

>This was not a debate - it was an ambush.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks this. Lennox was so anxious to attack Richard that he even did it during, what was supposed to be, his 'autobiographical' segment. Disgraceful.

And if Dawkins had played by the rules, the only opportunity he would have had to rebut 2 hours of shameless trolling would have been a few minutes at the very end. "Christian charity" indeed. :(

Other Comments by mejdrich

121. Comment #76496 by stevencarrwork on October 6, 2007 at 2:09 am

Anybody interested in seeing what Bill Hamilton really said, rather than Wee Flea's wicked lies ,
can look at page 456 of Narrow Roads of Gene Land Vol. 2 (which Wee Flea calls an 'autobiography' with his usual carefree attitude to the truth)

Hamilton was claiming that modern medicine was wrong to tinker with human embyros, and that we might end up with a generation of people dependent upon medicine to stay alive.



Other Comments by stevencarrwork

122. Comment #76497 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

Veronique,

You're welcome :-)

Re Styrer, he hasn't posted again, so it might just have been some twisted practical joke, but the thought occurred to me that it would be interesting to see Devolved or Reverend WeeWee or some other loony arguing here with a Muslim loony.

Other Comments by captain underpants

123. Comment #76503 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 2:34 am

devolved (102), It has long been abundantly clear that rational argument is not your thang. Your preferred response to difficult questions is to run away. I will therefore repeat my request that you provide credible evidence for virgin birth, so that you will run away again and leave us alone for a while.

Other Comments by captain underpants

124. Comment #76506 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 2:59 am

Dubious. posts 68 and 90, both by Styrer- do not seem to be written by the same person.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

125. Comment #76507 by Robert Maynard on October 6, 2007 at 3:05 am

Well spotted! Poe's Law is a much more pleasant explanation than the possibility that Styrer is an actual crazy Muslim.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

126. Comment #76509 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 3:11 am

Robert Maynard,

I didn't find anything about Poe's Law in wikipedia, would you mind explaining it?

Other Comments by captain underpants

127. Comment #76514 by BaronOchs on October 6, 2007 at 3:27 am

Poe's Law:

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

Other Comments by BaronOchs

128. Comment #76515 by Robert Maynard on October 6, 2007 at 3:32 am

BaronOchs beat me to it. :)
Poe's Law

Because we've all run into people expressing crazy sentiments, it can become very hard to distinguish a subtle parody of fundamentalism from the real thing. If one person is behind both comments made by Styrer, it's likely he's kidding, but I missed the first one and completely fell for it.

Then again, it's also possible that Styrer was using an internet terminal in a university library or something, didn't log out or close the window, and a young muslim came across the page (a mere 9 hours later) and posted something. I kind of hope it's the former, but the more I think about it, the likelier the latter seems. :|

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

129. Comment #76517 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2007 at 3:38 am

Does anyone get the feeling that Dr John Lennox is a religious fundamentalist?

He is an Intelligent Design advocate. ID is just creationism in a cheap Tuxedo.

His whole style and language throughout the debate sounded like fundamentalism.

It seems to me that he has never really escaped Northern Ireland and its black and white Protestantism.


Roger Stanyard

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

130. Comment #76518 by idnet.com.au on October 6, 2007 at 3:40 am

This was an interesting exchange. I really enjoyed it. Richard speaks very well and explains his views with his usual clarity. John Lennox was no fool either. Have you seen the quotes on Uncommon Descent? www.uncommondescent.com

Other Comments by idnet.com.au

131. Comment #76520 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 3:54 am

Robert Maynard (129),

I re-read the post and it doesn't look like the sort of bad English that someone would write deliberately, so I don't think your idea is entirely implausible.

Other Comments by captain underpants

132. Comment #76529 by phasmagigas on October 6, 2007 at 5:19 am

im going to listen to the full 'debate'. i listened to about 20 minutes live and unless i'm mistaken lennox gave little but confidently spoken assertions (as somebody else said before) and no argument, no evidence. To many these assertions equal truth simply because of how they were spoken, as if they were the final word.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

133. Comment #76530 by captain underpants on October 6, 2007 at 5:35 am

Phasmagigas,

i listened to about 20 minutes live

The remaining 100 minutes aren't worth bothering with. They're just more of the same.

Other Comments by captain underpants

134. Comment #76533 by phasmagigas on October 6, 2007 at 5:42 am

the problem with debates is that they only ever seem to touch the surface, nobody gets time to really get the good arguments out there. I suspect its that the questions are to metaphysical or involve so much relativism (good/bad).

Id like to have the likes of lennox thrown an 'earthy' question such as 'can you explain why humans and chimps share more DNA than either does with any other organism, why does a chimp for example not have more in common genetically with a gorilla or a mouse'.

Now this is what i'd love to see: a panel of say 3 theists could give their own answer independent of the others (and not hear what the other shave to say)and id be VERY interested to hear the the non conforming maybe contradictory versions of truth that emerge (we could get anything from 'god did it to test faith' to 'of course it has to be similar, god only has so much to tinker with and we do look a bit like chimps i suppose' and of course 'god guided evolution' from the evolutionary theist'. three evolutionists would give similar at least conforming answers (would the religites than accuse them of sticking to a dogma?)

another question could be something like 'can you explain why the drug LSD affects the soul so profoundly'. Ok, so sounds almost silly doesnt it but then its upto the theists to provide their three answers, the three different answers (they may start to sat things like, 'but just what is the soul/mind? but its up to them to answer) with possibly very little in common, which one to believe??

another: 'do you accept that dogs have some degree of self awareness? give reasons for your answer. (to the evolutonist the answers are quite simple, again the theists could have a rather mixed bag). I personally am suspicious of a religious person who says animals dont have souls therefor dont have feelings ar self awareness, i am just thankful i at least give them the benefit of the doubt that they might be.(to a skeptic of animal self awareness, i would offer them the challenge of climbing into the chimp enclosure of a zoo, spend a bit of time in there running around and then tell us those things dont 'know' you are there!)

I feel that unexpected questions like this could help sort the wheat from the chaff. Afterall, which person would take their car to 6 mechanics and ignore the three that gave the same answer to the chugging noise in the car instead of picking one of the three non conforming (even contradictory) explanations.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

135. Comment #76534 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 5:43 am

devolved:

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion". I agree. But they do terrible things in the name of all sorts of causes including patriotism and science.

The "people are bad m'kay" argument doesn't solve anything. Like "godditit" it's just throwing in the towel.

Most popular religions are very authoritarian, and support large groups of trusting followers easily coopted by clever politicians. Authoritarianism, or misplaced confidence in bad leadership, leads to evils on a massive scale.

Religious people must take responsibility for the cruel teachings in their holy books. They must take those teachings out, or publish some document explaining why we're not to take those teachings as God's word today. Without explicit disavowel, those teachings are ticking time bombs some leader will exploit one day.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

136. Comment #76535 by Roger Stanyard on October 6, 2007 at 5:46 am

Checking back again, I note that Lennox was pushing the argument that atheism was behind Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc..

This is standard fundamentalist boilerplate and the argument has arisen soley because the Discovery Institute funded a book on the subject a few years back. Given that the DI funded it, the arguments look to be somewhat biased and, indeed, I believe the work has been pretty thoroughly pulled to pieces.

There has recently been a similar book published in the UK by a Met Office official who is also a member of the Creation Science Movement.

BCSE identified Lennox as an IDer some 18 months ago. I think it would be useful if we had some more background on him. Can anyone else help?

Roger Stanyard

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

137. Comment #76537 by Dr Benway on October 6, 2007 at 5:50 am

Lennox has done damage to my opinion of Oxford.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

138. Comment #76546 by garp on October 6, 2007 at 7:19 am

OK, read this today and got a chuckle from it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071005.wlbible05/BNStory/lifeMain/home

Other Comments by garp

139. Comment #76549 by SharrieG on October 6, 2007 at 7:39 am

I've just listened to this and found it really interesting. The format spoiled it though; it would've been interesting to see where Dawkins and Lennox would have taken it had they been allowed to properly come back at each other. They both sounded pretty frustrated to me.

They both made some decent points, but it was kind of pointless when they couldn't actually respond to each other properly. It didn't seem that either of them really got out of their own worldview to seeing things from the other person's angle, and that's where inevitably they clashed - but the format didn't really allow for that.

About the comments about John Lennox - I met him once at a conference, and he's an incredible thinker (and also a really nice guy), and fascinating to talk with. He's not a "religious fundamentalist" as someone suggested above, not by a long shot. Apart from that, I can't tell you much!

Other Comments by SharrieG

140. Comment #76552 by kevy34 on October 6, 2007 at 8:10 am

No more gulags, no more concentrations camps? If i don't belive in God apparently i'm going to hell. Which is nothing more than a celestail gulag. Christianity is facist and communist. Tow the part line or go to hell!! What a moron.

Other Comments by kevy34

141. Comment #76554 by kevy34 on October 6, 2007 at 8:33 am

I remember a few years ago i saw on television the story about a 5 year old boy who fell into the Gorilla enclosure at a zoo. A female Gorilla picked up the unconscious boy and put him by the keepers door. To me that is a heroic act on her behalf. To recognize that a member of another species was in a potentially dangerous situation and to make the moral decision to provide some help and do some good provides evidence that you don't need a belief in God to have morals. I doubt that Gorilla ever read the bible.

Other Comments by kevy34

142. Comment #76555 by BillySands on October 6, 2007 at 8:33 am

I've just heard RD say that people do terrible things "in the name of religion".

You can say that again:

Why should you all be allowed to live when my new God says you are put to death? Will you answer my questions? Why should I not put you all to death?

Wonder why wee flea is not challenging him to a razor fight. He's always having a go at RD for not taking on Islam. Go on David, offer him a square go - CLUCK CLUCK.

Talking of Chickens, what about those ones with teeth Devolved. Found any pesky dinosaurs or paleozoic humans?

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species

Ah, you forgot to mention the god botheresgot to him first, and where in "the origin" does it say

"After Joshua died, the Israelites asked the LORD, "Which tribe should attack the Canaanites first?" The LORD answered, "Judah, for I have given them victory over the land." The leaders of Judah said to their relatives from the tribe of Simeon, "Join with us to fight against the Canaanites living in the territory allotted to us. Then we will help you conquer your territory." So the men of Simeon went with Judah. When the men of Judah attacked, the LORD gave them victory over the Canaanites and Perizzites, and they killed ten thousand enemy warriors at the town of Bezek. While at Bezek they encountered King Adoni-bezek and fought against him, and the Canaanites and Perizzites were defeated. Adoni-bezek escaped, but the Israelites soon captured him and cut off his thumbs and big toes. Adoni-bezek said, "I once had seventy kings with thumbs and big toes cut off, eating scraps from under my table. Now God has paid me back for what I did to them." They took him to Jerusalem, and he died there. The men of Judah attacked Jerusalem and captured it, killing all its people and setting the city on fire." Oops thats not "the origin", its actually Judges 1:1-8

Or where does it say ""Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." Oh, sorry, that's the bible again isnt it (Ezekiel 9:5-7)

Heard of the christian terrorist Eric Robert Rudolph? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

How about you actually provide evidence for god's existence, or demonstrate how the bible allegedly supports evolution - you could even criticize devolved. Or ar you just cyincally going to exploit the suffering of others again to pathetically try and have a go at atheists again?

Other Comments by BillySands

143. Comment #76556 by Enlightenme.. on October 6, 2007 at 8:41 am

I always look forward to the moment in these debates when Dawkins completely loses it & his voice goes up an octave to 'exasperated'.

Today's breaking point was 'How is a belief in the cosmos going to incite me to murder?'

I got the biggest laugh at the end though, when one of the radio guys called RD a flat-earther!
You have to give credit for that one.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

144. Comment #76557 by ciphergoth on October 6, 2007 at 8:50 am

I would be fascinated to know how come Dawkins agreed to the debate. I assume that he is constantly bombarded with invitations to debate theists - how did this one make its way to the top of the pile? Not, I'd guess, because they were up-front about the format the debate would take.

Other Comments by ciphergoth

145. Comment #76558 by Bonzai on October 6, 2007 at 8:53 am

117. Comment #76488 by Richard Dawkins

Sorry Richard, I got the idea that you picked Lennox as your adversary from some blog which commented on the debate. I should have known better to double check my source.

I wonder if you can share with us what you think of the debate?

Other Comments by Bonzai

146. Comment #76563 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 9:30 am

Comment #76503 by captain underpants

devolved (102), It has long been abundantly clear that rational argument is not your thang. Your preferred response to difficult questions is to run away. I will therefore repeat my request that you provide credible evidence for virgin birth, so that you will run away again and leave us alone for a while.

There seems to be a queue forming waiting for devolved to provide answers. He owes me a whole stack on why "The Flood" really happened, and Billy Sands various responses on evolutionary questions.

Other Comments by epeeist

147. Comment #76564 by epeeist on October 6, 2007 at 9:43 am

Comment #76460 by The Wee Flea

As regards Stalin – read Montefiore's Young Stalin – which describes in detail his conversion to atheism through reading and being enlightened by the Origin of the Species.

There was a piece of music on Radio 3 this week which characterises Stalin quite nicely.

It was Prokofiev's cantata "Hail to Stalin" (op 85). Makes him sound a bit like a deity.

Other Comments by epeeist

148. Comment #76575 by d4m14n on October 6, 2007 at 10:50 am

One thing that is clear from this 'debate', is that in order to successfully challenge a theistic position, you have to nail down EXACTLY what kind of god they believe in. If you don't, they have carte blanche to duck any arguments thrown their way. Good luck getting them to admit what they actually believe though!

Other Comments by d4m14n

149. Comment #76577 by blackhaw on October 6, 2007 at 10:57 am

Jason,

The SM is good for science and gaining information about the physical world. It is not good for obtaining information on events that one cannot repeat or observe. For instance history is not a science and neither can one really prove or disprove God through science. One can state that an item or event has a physical cause but that does not disprove or prove God. I really do not think philosophy and theology is a science and i am not too keen on calling the "social sciences" science. i think that confuses things.

And no I do not believe that the SM is the only reliable approach for gaining knowledge about what the world is like and what causes things to occur. Sure it can tell me a physical cause but that is all.

Other Comments by blackhaw

150. Comment #76579 by blackhaw on October 6, 2007 at 11:08 am

Veronique,

Wow! A put down to start your post. Way to go. After the first person to respond to my post i thought I had been too hard on this forum. You prove me wrong.

i did not know i did not state in my post Dr. Dawkins. I normally will just say Lennox or Hitchens and leave out the Dr.. if I was responding to them or speaking to them in person I would call them Dr. Dawkins, etc.

I capitalized Christiany because of the word Christ. Also it is a proer name of a religion. Atheism is not a religion so it does not need ot be capitalized. The opposite of atheism is theism. Not Christianity. So atheism should not be capitalized while Christianity should. I think you can understand my point without me going further.

So there is no Islamic Fundamentalism? By your definition Islamic fundamentalism would be impossible. I suggest you find a better definition.

"Please post again and be a little more considered with your use of language and, ahem, spelling and grammar."

A little more considered? Before you criticize another take the log out of your own eye. Considered?

Other Comments by blackhaw