[_ Old Earth _] The God Delusion Debate.

[John]

I just finished watching this great debate between Richard dawkins and john lennox. All i can say is WOW it was great!

I am gonna head out to buy his book now:

Have anyone here seen this debate or read both books ? (the god delusion and/or Gods undertaker)

 

[Bryce]

I havn't read it yet but plan on it. :-?

And where did you watch the debate?

 

[John]

I havn't read it yet but plan on it. :-?

And where did you watch the debate?

MP3 player :

 

[Dunzo]

Read the book before deciding it's wrong.

EDIT: Audio version of the debate can be found here:
http://richarddawkins.net/audio/dawkins ... _part1.mov
http://richarddawkins.net/audio/dawkins ... _part2.mov
http://richarddawkins.net/audio/dawkins ... _part3.mov

 

[Square]

I went in search for the video, but I found that it is supposed to only be released on DVD. I’ve watched other Dawkins videos, but none left me anxious to buy anything with the Dawkins name on it.

“Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe†video could only have been a truthful title if it implied ‘jaw-dropping for lack of presenting knowledge of the topic.’ I'm hoping that he knows more than what he exhibits in videos.

 

[John]

I went in search for the video, but I found that it is supposed to only be released on DVD. I’ve watched other Dawkins videos, but none left me anxious to buy anything with the Dawkins name on it.

“Richard Dawkins' jaw-dropping talk on our bizarre universe†video could only have been a truthful title if it implied ‘jaw-dropping for lack of presenting knowledge of the topic.’ I'm hoping that he knows more than what he exhibits in videos.

You can download MP3 format from dawkins site i think or just Google it.

John lennox mopped the floor with him.

 

[Square]

Thanks Dunzo for the mov files.

John lennox mopped the floor with him.

I listened to the MP3s that Dunzo provided. I do enjoy the Englanders’ accent.

I must confess that I hold a previously-derived bias against Dawkins’ views, which of course results in my often listening more for errors than for any good thoughts he might speak. I would much prefer to watch the video so that I could observe the body language of the participants.

You are correct that Lennox easily held the upper hand throughout the dialogs. Dawkins' lack of education and experience in the topics were greatly exposed throughout the talks. I was typing notes while listening to the audio, and it is interesting that my bias against Dawkins is now different, that while I still recognize that he is unlearned (outside of biology) and very wrong in many of his beliefs, I now feel a strong pity for the man. He repeatedly spoke of how “horrible†the world is, and for him to give such strong emphasis to such words, it means that the world does appear horrible in his eyes and that his life is likely not rosy.


On a different video debate;
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=d ... ision&cd=1

Dawkins repeatedly tried to divert discussions to “what is the penalty†for a religion’s member not obeying the religion’s teachings. What about the penalty for not obeying Dawkin’s religion? What is the secular penalty of a sixteen year old boy marrying a thirteen year old girl? What is the secular penalty of a fourteen year old girl having an abortion without government approval? What is the secular penalty of a citizen choosing communism over capitalism? What is the secular penalty for treason? Dawkins’ thoughts are disconnected, emotionally based, and hypocritical, of a similar instability as typical religious zealots that believe their beliefs are flawless and should be forced upon everyone. As a man, Dawkins is a harmless creature, but as an author, his aberrant ideas can only cause increased strife as all aberrant religions do.

 

[John]

Here is a video promo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnO6-RjLnxs

 

[Dunzo]

I found it rather irritating that Lennox just raised arguments that had already been put to bed in Dawkins' book already.
Dawkins was pretty terrible at getting his point across in this debate. He tended to stutter a lot, trying to find the right words. Lennox, however, seemed rehearsed. So rehearsed, in fact, that he would continue at length on something that was irrelevant to the point made, just because he had rehearsed that part.

John lennox mopped the floor with him.

Keep telling yourself that. :smt083

 

[Square]

Thanks for the link johnmuise. I'd seen it and wished it was much longer!

I found it rather irritating that Lennox just raised arguments that had already been put to bed in Dawkins' book already.

I haven't read Dawkins' book, so I was pleased to hear the topics being discussed.

From the way the audio sounded, it appeared to me that Dawkins was nervous and likely not experienced enough with the topics to give a good reply. Lennox sounded like an experienced speaker, possibly due to teaching more classes? Or knowing the topic better? It seemed like Lennox was able to hold the floor by staying on the topics he knew best. It's easy to ramble at length when it's on a favorite topic. : Dunno though, just guessing...

 

[Jayls5]

I'm about half way though with listening to this "Debate."

How is it a debate if the moderator is steering it so each person gets to say their side and then they move on without arguing each other's points? That's not a debate at all. I have no idea who constructed this mockery of a debate, but it wouldn't surprise me in the LEAST bit if it was religious in origin. Who is hosting/moderating this thing?

Dawkins is obviously frustrated because he has to go back on things he's not "supposed" to even though it's supposedly a "debate."

 

[Jayls5]

Thanks for the link johnmuise. I'd seen it and wished it was much longer!

I found it rather irritating that Lennox just raised arguments that had already been put to bed in Dawkins' book already.

I haven't read Dawkins' book, so I was pleased to hear the topics being discussed.

From the way the audio sounded, it appeared to me that Dawkins was nervous and likely not experienced enough with the topics to give a good reply. Lennox sounded like an experienced speaker, possibly due to teaching more classes? Or knowing the topic better? It seemed like Lennox was able to hold the floor by staying on the topics he knew best. It's easy to ramble at length when it's on a favorite topic. : Dunno though, just guessing...

No, it sounded like Lennox was quoting things from Dawkins' books then presenting rhetorical arguments on things that were directly addressed/refuted within those very books. Lennox was obviously a sophist that was playing to the audience that hadn't read the material presented by Dawkins. Lennox was using scientists that were not theists and attributing it to theism for his arguments, then Dawkins wasn't supposed to respond to them. I refuse to believe that someone could have been so articulate and not realize he was making rhetorical and sophist style arguments against Dawkins. I'm really just baffled that such a terrible debate could have taken place where a dialectic was avoided by the moderator. Shame on those involved if it actually took place in an academic setting.


And what [edit] is with this post debate commentary? They're practically [edit] Lennox. Dawkins' view is the "flat world" view? What the [edit]. That sounds objective! Yeah, Dawkins is the guy with that old view that was empirically refuted and nobody ever supports anymore! Excellent synopsis of that lively debate.... that lacked debate...