Dawkins/Lennox

It's already past my bedtime, if this gets saved somewhere on t'Interweb, could someone post a link please?

Ta.

And from the headline I wsa thinking that Dawkins was going to be singing with Annie.

That should be rather interseting. I'm unfamilliar with Lenox as an apologist. I wonder if he'll actually have anything new to say?

I'm gonna try to record this and host the result somewhere. No promises, though.

It's starting now.
http://70.85.123.2/kmbiM012

Anyone liveblogging this?

8:21 pm: In his opening statement, Lennox invokes "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord." My expectations plummet.

"Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."

Not listening to the debate, but a friend of mine tried to convert me with a book and it began with this argument (from C. S. Lewis, I think). The argument is so stupid I couldn't get past it, even to make my friend happy.

Lennox so far:

- Some faith is blind; (some) Christian faith is not.
- Science came out of a theistic desire to understand the world.
- Newton didn't dismiss God once he discoverd his laws of motion.
- Richard may be making a categoy mistake: confusing mechanism with agency.

Lennox claims that we must ascribe an intelligent entity behind creation in order to make sense of science. (runs screamins)

Holy crap Lennox is a tool: "..worship of delusional gods is roundly condemned in the bible". I imagine it's roundly condemned in most religious texts. That's not a proof your text is right and everyone else's is wrong. Odd how he can't see passed his own delusion while condemning others'. Though hardly surprising.

Now Lennox is claiming the bible is a physics textbook -- based on the fact that the bible says the universe had a beginning.

The man is a fool.

Uh. Lennox is an Oxford professor?

Lennox asks: Richard, do you have faith in your wife? Is the evidence for that?
Dawkins: Yes, my interaction with her
Lennox: That's not evidence.
Dawkins: Ok, then we're discussing semantics.

:
- Atheism undermines science; scientists believe in the rational intelligibility of science.
- Conflation of the definitions of faith (confidence based on experience vs believing in unsubstatiated fluff)
- Because life was cobbled together [via evolution] our perception of the world is not accurate.
- Calls evolution a "random process."

Paraphrase:
"An argument that puports to derive rationality form irrationality does not even rise to the level of a respectible delusion; it is incoherent."

Fine-tuning of nature.

Anything new there?

"An argument that puports to derive rationality form irrationality does not even rise to the level of a respectible delusion; it is incoherent."

Who said this? Dawkins?

AAaaaaaarghhh!

I've listened to half an hour of it, and the religious goof is simply repeating, with polysyllables, the traditional goofiness. Just to label a couple of them:

1) The universe is JUST RIGHT for life -- therefore, there is God!

2) Newton believed in God, and he was really fucking smart, so you ought to believe, too.

3) Einstein used the word "faith", so you ought to believe,too, because, after all, he was even smarter than Newton.

4) And (most convoluted) atheism HURTS science because (deep breath) the ONLY REASON one can investigate the world (which is what science does) is because the world is not random, the world actually runs on discernible principles. THEREFORE there MUST be a designer -- because I REFUSE to believe there is any use in looking for answers, if there WASN'T a designer. Therefore, atheism hurts science. Could you understand it? I couldn't.

5) Plain old lying (old shibboleth: "We are the results of random, undirected action.) Fuck you, natural selection, everyone.

6) Who created God? God wasn't created. God was always there, is eternal, this is fundamental distinction between the universe and God. God is, was always there, and the universe was created by God. There is the supernatural below everything.

In other words, crap, crap, crap, no evidence, lies, avoidance, etc. etc.

I don't need listen anymore. Just have faith. Feh!

All I want to know is if Dawkins is pummelling the fellow.

Whether or not Dawkins is pummelling him depends upon the feelings you came to the debate with.

I am the son of a minister. I grew up bathed in religion, and I know a sermon when I hear it, and I can follow lines of bullshit until I find the asshole at the end of it.

This fellow debating Dawkins IS an asshole -- all of his sentence constructions, all of his arguments are based on him putting down his opponent, rather than upon actually addressing the arguments.

Aaarghhh! Again!

Aaaarghh!

Lennox:
Anthropic principal is a truism.
TGD assumes that God was created.
... more crap....

Lennox is a fairly articulate and presumably reasonably intelligent guy who is managing to spout some of the most ridiculous apologistic tripe at a Gish-gallop rate. He seems quite adept at employing logical fallacy to rhetorical effect, but he is exposed whenever he breaks the cardinal rule of creo debate and makes a positive claim. Unfortunately, the opportunities for such exposure aren't many. The format of this debate is infuriating; moderator reads excerpt from TGD, Dawkins elaborates, and then Lennox gets to spout of his tripe without any retort from Dawkins.

Will Lennox claim the value for a circle's radius in relation to its diameter is only 3?

Janus, Lennox said that, in reference to the materialist's belief that *gasp* a rationally intelligible world could have come about in the absence of a god. The "irrationality" he was referring to is the process of evolution (and Dawkins made the category mistake???)

Thank you, Robert - I couldn't find a working link anywhere. Interesting that a lot of religious sites are touting this one.

Dawkins is getting annoyed with the nonsense setup.

1) Book read from GD.
2) Dawkins says, yeah that's what my book says.
3) Lennox gets to make a bunch of crap nonsense arguments.
4) Goto 1

"Inference to the best explanation" -
This thing no one's ever seen or interacted with that can be measured - THAT did it!

and now some "no true Christian"...

It's the "No true Scotsman" argument! (6:10 pm west coast time)

Rich, I was just exclaiming in delight - I hadn't seen your near-simultaneous post.

Veiled attempt to foist Hitler off onto atheism. How typical.

ooh... well poisoning...

Hey, turns out that Christianity doesn't have faults or fanatics.

From Lennox I've counted:

Ad hominem
False analogy
Equivocation
Appeal to authority
Argument from ignorance
... and the Hitler/Mao/Stalin thing

On a positive note:
- The ad hominem seems to be employed as a rhetorical device and is not an indication of outright douchebaggery.
- His accent is an amusing mix of Irish and English.

I can't wait to read an annotated transcript of this debate. Bronze Dog?

Now he's committing the usual whining complaint that atheism is responsible for Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot...and then he also sneaks in an accusation that Hitler was also an atheist.

Then he claims that Dawkins elides the common factor uniting those tyrants...and it's atheism, not communism nor a totalitarian state. I think it's Lennox that is ignoring the common elements uniting murderous states, and it ain't atheism.

Atheism leads to Stalin. Yadda yadda.
Recycled Twilight of Atheism arguments.

There was a time when there weren't atheists, and the church ran everything... it was called the Dark Ages.

Lennox: "To Marx, atheism was central to the rest of his ideas" [paraphrasing].

What?

Marx: "Religious suffering is at one and the same time the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is therefore in embryo the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo."

His views on religion informed his economic views, or the other way around? Lennox either is a liar or ignorant.

Given he's got more degrees than God and lists each one, I'm betting on the former.

I've listened to half an hour of it, and the religious goof is simply repeating, with polysyllables, the traditional goofiness.

a polysyllabic demented fuckwit?

are you sure you weren't listening to Michael Egnor?

Dawkins:

"The terrible things that Stalin did, did not follow from his atheism."

You will not do terrible deeds because you are an atheist."

Good points.

Hitchens was just right about Stalin being a "Czar." That's what was wrong about Lennox's illustration about the little girl denied further education because she would not toady to the totalitarian state. She was not the victim of atheism. She was the victim of a religion in which the State and Society were the gods.

"Atheism is a faith. Of course it is!"

Don't these fools ever get tired of looking foolish?

Logical path from fundamentalism.

Atheism is a faith.

No it's not.

Don't you believe.

Not believing in Zeus doesn't lead to doing evil things.

I think it has nothing to do with Zeus, Zeus is a non-existent deity.

Heh.

Ooooh - them "non existent Deities...!"

Bwahahahahahahah

Dear god. Lennox says "Zeus and Wotan are nonexistent deities", and thinks that somehow sets up a significant difference between christianity and atheism.

I can tell Dawkins is getting a bit exasperated. So am I. This Lennox twit is yet another marionette dancing for Jesus.

Dawkins has improved his game quite a few notches since last I heard him. He's been hitting the speed bag a little around the gym. He's getting to the point faster and simpler. I'm very glad about it. He's reaching people who would never have heard him, and even the believer must hear he's more honest than the other guy. He's scoring some points, God bless 'im.

This Lennox twit is yet another marionette dancing for Jesus.

ummmm, who's pulling the strings?

Jesus is long dust.

get in "the persecution of homosexuals", please.

D: You can be moral without the Bible. Morality evolves like this, everybody has it.

L: If you mean that atheists can be moral. Of course they are. That's because God exists.

L: If a rock kills you, then it's not evil. It just is.
How can you call it evil if people kill other people?

(horrified) Lennox really doesn't believe good and evil can possibly exist if there is no God....

And now he's complaining that the absence of god makes it impossible to talk about evil. 'if a rock falls on your head and kills you, we couldn't call it evil" WTF? We should call it evil?

Dawkins: Morality evolves over time, part of the zeitgeist. Slavery wasn't wrong according to the Bible 200 years ago. In some places, including here, slavery was not immoral 200 years ago and was well accepted. But morality has moved on since then, without aid of the Bible. How can you attribute morality, then, to the unchanging truths of the Bible?

Lennox: "You cannot derive and ought from an is - you cannot get morality out of a materialist world. Materialism leads to utilitarian views of society. Dostoyevsky "If God does not exist everything is permissable." Neitsche said the same thing. They were right.

How come Lennox goes second all the time?

'if a rock falls on your head and kills you, we couldn't call it evil" WTF? We should call it evil?

I think you could probably just keep saying:

WTF?

as the sole and only content to any remaining posts, and everyone in this thread would know exactly what you meant.

having said that...

who's pulling the strings?

Their reified concept of Jesus, as mediated by culture?

WTF?

I love Dawkins' statement that you're defying evolutionary impulses every time you use a contraceptive. Great new argument and a nice tweak of blue noses.

That's how they set it up, so Lennox can "rebut" everything and Dawkins can't respond (he is doing a good job anyway). Dawkins will nevertheless get the last word in closing statements. (Unless they cut him off early because they are "running out of time" like they have just done.)

L: If rocks can kill you and people are dancing to their DNA then there is no objective morality.

D: And. Maybe that's right. And ofcourse you can rebel against the bad things. Wearing a condom leads to no babies but still gives orgasms. So of course you can skirt that.

-- He's gotten a lot better. Even stepping outside the crap setup of the debate and does so quickly with sharp jabs.

Ooooh Biblical "Scholars".

*bites tongue*

He's confusing "history" with "myth"

Now Lennox deploys the courtier's reply - Luke is a great historian - I hope Dawkins cleans his clock on this one.

Historicity of the Bible! Didn't that go out of style in the 1800s even for theology types?

Luke is held by scholars to be the most historically reliable of the so-called gospels? Dammit, I think I just broke a blood vessel in the "lie detector" mechanism in my brain. Taking an extra dose of blood pressure meds.

This fella just makes up his own definitions!

Miracles are not violations of the law of nature? Just what does he think they are??

Of course you can derive 'ought' from 'is'. It's called (among other things) "game theory".

Evolution reveals how intention and purpose can arise out of the base facts of reality that possess neither.

This man is just repeating cliches: philosophical cliches, religious apologetic cliches, it doesn't matter.

Luke is one of the best Historians. So questioning his historicity is a bad idea.

Luke the character is different from Luke of Luke/Acts. It's rather pathetic. It's a rather obvious jump. Luke is the general name for the unknown author of the Gospel of Luke who is believed to be the same author of Acts. The character of Luke is a character.

Lennox: "God is at liberty to feed a new event into the universe."

It's a miracle!

Luke is held by scholars to be the most historically reliable of the so-called gospels?

Miracles are not violations of the law of nature?

WTF?

He's wrong on Luke and conflating the difference between Luke the author and Luke the character.

HAHAHAHA the Terrorists Win! Oh man, Bushisms are everywhere.

Argument to consequences!

Luke is one of the best Historians.

indeed, except when it comes to the history of his own father.

oh, wait, wrong fantasy.

Ichthyic, I was paraphrasing since I did not remember Lennox's exact words, but that is basically what he said. Unfortunate, isn't it.

Lennox's conclusion is nothing but preaching to believers in Jesus. Dawkins calls him on it -- good for him. He calls the resurrection of Jesus petty and trivial and unworthy of the universe. This is not going to endear him to the god-wallopers in the audience, but damn, it's good.

How come Lennox goes second all the time?

Home-field advantage.

Dawkins: "so petty, so trivial, so local, so earthbound, so unworthy of the universe."

Bravo!

Nietzsche said a great many things, and in his discussion of morality, one of the important points he made was that humanity was beginning to recognize that there was no absolute authority that moral systems could be delivered from, so we faced the obligation and opportunity to develop our own.

Not that anything was possible. That we needed to learn the limits of possibility, and set up our own limits in addition to that.

DVD available - you bibul thumpers will have to "unpack this" - by which we mean your pastor will unpack it for you.

They stated the debate won't be archived online. They seem to fail to understand how the internet works these days.

Heh. My part ended with a pitch to buy the CD. It won't be archived anywhere on the net. Somebody doesn't know how the net works.

-- Heh. Dawkins was pretty sharp, the end was fantastic. Moreso being broadcast to religious statements.

How many people will say that Lennox "won" merely because he stood up and preached at a godless atheist?

This is a travesty. It's not about reason, or debate, it's about displaying the religious goods for sale and waiting for people to buy.

Pray tell - how'd it end???

And by "unpack", they mean say that atheism is the same as totalitarianism... and claim that Dawkins "struggled" with that point... were they listening to the same as me?

These two commentators seem neutral..

0_o

At least they want folks to think about it.

Wow, are these guys the "unpackers?" So you can "unpack this at the retail level!??!" WTF?!?!

I'm waiting for Madden to jump in here and go "BOOM!"

I seem to be in agreement with Mr. Nietzsche. Thanks for tossing that in, Cal.

The unctuous announcers have just said you can buy a CD or DVD of the debate, but that it will not be archived anywhere on the internet.

I didn't find it very satisfying. They imposed a structure on it that throughout gave Lennox the chance to rebut, and then hit Dawkins with a new question. RD had to constantly scramble to try and address Lennox's bogosities and squeeze in an answer to the new question. He did well, but you could tell the format made RD run and run and run while Lennox could sit back and babble.

Unctuous announcers? I mean asshole announcers. They're saying the highlight of the evening was Lennox's "real world experience" with the soviet evil empire, and that Dawkins admission that we don't know everything about the beginning of the universe was significant. Clearly, two people didn't learn anything.

http://www.aproundtable.org/

Is the website.

Y'know they did suggest going out and reading both books. If people read TGD without a pastor over their shoulder to "unpack" it for them, then at least a few more doubts will have been sown, and perhaps a few more minds opened. I'm all for it. Everyone should read both books and see which one makes sense.

Atheists say the world is flat..

eh? Paging Bruno Giordano.

"Amen" - to skeptiscm... you find that in church, right?

Rich, the comments page is pretty good :)

This moment's serendipitous auto-quote from the left margin:

"There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher- the clergyman." [Victor Hugo]

I agree with those above who were frustrated, let alone Prof. Dawkins. That really was a poor formate for a debate and Dr. Lennox was mostly being a patronizing ass, not to mention insulting. What the hell was that crap about Dawkin's wife if not an attempt to demean Prof. Dawkins in front of the crowd?

The only thing more I wanted from Dawkins was a stronger comeback to the "Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot" garbage. It seemed like he had a great opportunity to knock one out of the park & didn't take it.

The dipshits now claim that Dawkins is a flat-earther!!
WTF???

Wow, are these guys the "unpackers?" So you can "unpack this at the retail level!??!" WTF?!?!

WTF?

see?

works on many levels for this "debate".

It just shows how bad the problem is when it's decided by anyone (namely, the promoters of this charade) that Dawkins and Lennonx are somehow on equal rational footing here.

The comments on the website are dismaying.

Here's one:
"Dawkins conceded much more in the debate than I expected. 1. That God cannot be disproved. 2. He had no explanation for morality. 3. That we don't know the origins of the universe. 4. That the staggeringly evident hypothesis would be creation. We have to transcend that more obvious view. The only thing Dawkins seemed sure of is that whatever the case, God can't be the cause of anything. It is a clear case of an "a priori" commitment to a philosophical commitment. Both men are great intellects. I thought that Lennox built up a premise, and Dawkins just tried to tear down."
Israel Wayne"

#4. Dawkins conceded that "the staggeringly evident hypothesis would be creation." What did he really say that could be construed that way?

Next comment:
"For Dr. Lennox to speak with such conviction is certaintly a gift. A gift given, not by the random reaction between bacteria-like particles, but from an all powerful God who inspires those willing to further his glorious kingdom. "
Owen"

Or a gift given by the ability to parrot talking points without wasting time thinking, or by the organizers who set things up so that his opponent was ham-strung?

I don't get it. To me it is simple. ONLY insane or very ignorant people REALLY believe in god as so called believers generally describe such an entity.

I don't care whether they are ministers or high priest apologists. ONLY insane or very ignorant people REALLY believe in god .. you want proof?

Slam the question in lawyer yes no form to any believer.. You have a seriously ill loved one - treatment choices: resounding prayer OR (exclusively one or the other) the best SECULAR medical treatment. Choose!

Bet their precious 5 year old would end up in MEDICAL DOCTOR'S (NOT Witch Doctor's) hands. OK - they'd lie and try to weasle past the question - but a good "lawyer" could EASILY make his case on that question alone.

Sane, modern, knowledgable people don't believe in the power of god .. to say god exists but is useless or totally unreliable in any practical sense is to say 99% of religion is BS by explication. It gets worse .. it says - probably all is a delusion - a worthless one at that. Dawkins is so right on!!

John Morales: Some of these comments are cracking me up. These guys are priceless!

I do have to agree a bit with some of them. Dawkins didn't bring it hard enough. Not that he didn't have answers like they claim, but because he is way too nice. I guess that's what happens when you're such a nice guy and don't let yourself fill up with hate.

Should have tagged out for "Internet PZ" halfway through. Then we'd have seen a real "debate."

Ooooh! So Dawkins is now (possibly) the Antichrist:

" "Although I do not agree with his arguments, Dawkins sure has a charisma about him; well spoken and articulate. I can only pray that he sees that God gave him that! The antichrist is said to be articulate and very charismatic as well."
Kent"

Regarding Nietzsche:

Companions the creator seeks, not corpses, not herds and believers. Fellow creators the creator seeks--those who write new values on new tablets. Companions the creator seeks, and fellow harvesters; for everything about him is ripe for the harvest.

-- "Thus Spoke Zarathustra"

As you may have guessed, I'm a tremendous fan of Nietzsche. Also of Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. The above quote unifies two of my great loves.

Reading the comments on the website makes me realize (once again) that trying to make these people think rationally is pointless. Utterly, utterly pointless. The best we can do is rally up our fellow atheists, make atheists into a politically significant group, and use this political strength to stop the cycle of indoctrination.

That's the thing, though: Dawkins is a nice guy, but that won't stop anyone from claiming he's "hate-filled", or that he's the antichrist. You really can't win. Especially when people on your own side chime in and agree that you're a mean ol' poopy-head.

Lennox sounded the more polished and passionate speaker or rather - as became more obvious at the end - preacher.

There were the same old arguments, glibly presented, having the same old appeal of being easier to understand than those of science and of being designed to satisfy human emotional needs rather than provide a consistent and coherent explanation of what we see.

Dawkins is a superb writer, a brilliant exponent of evolution, a powerful advocate for atheism and I enjoy listening to him speak but he is more of an academic lecturer than a rabble-rouser.

Personally, I would have liked to hear Christopher Hitchens take on - and take down - John Lennox.

Reading the comments (I am not putting myself throught the debate) it sounds like Dawkins went into the lions den and got mauled by the lion who somewhow helped make the rules.

"If atheism is so open-minded, why do they disregard scientific facts, history, and the Bible?" -- I don't! I don't! Hell yeah I do, because its crap.

So let me get this straight, I didn't hear this sham of a debate, Dawkins goes into this thing against an opponent with a lopsided home field advantage (like playing soccer on a hill with your goal on the downward side) and is then asked to prove a negative? Sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

"You can ignore reality and stick your head in the sand like an ostrich. The only difference it makes to a lion is that he'll think you're stupid before he eats you."- me

Heh, they are patting themselves on the back for being open minded enough to allow a debate. I'm been on a lot of atheist forums and I must say they get no credit for allowing debate and they aways do. I mean just complete nutjobs keep getting replies by PhDs. Throwing pearls before swine, it's a competition to find out who gives the most staggeringly destructive rebuttal in the fewest words.

PZ - in #30 you hit Dawkins weakness this evening - but then seemed to dismiss it as inconsequentisal. Dawkins said that we should imagine a world without the Taliban, without 9/11 bombers, etc. Lennox said that we should imagine a world without Pol Pot or Stalin - who admittedly killed many millions more. Dawkins chose to frame (part of) the argument in that way tonight as he did in "The God Delusion". Lennox simply used his own frame very effectively back at him.

The Christian commentators brought this up first thing after the debate as an example of Dawkins "stuggling". Do you disagree?

Frustrating.

"Without God, there is no basis for goodness."

No a priori basis. But we can reflect and negotiate with each other and so decide for ourselves what is good. We can form agreements, and we can honor these agreements. Honor is far nobler than mere obedience to power.

"If we're all the result of random processes, then there's no reason to do anything."

No a priori reason. I find it odd, Prof Lennox, that you describe yourself as a foe of totalitarianism, yet you pimp authoritarianism above egalitarianism.

Nisbet/Lennox would be interesting...

Science came out of a theistic desire to understand the world.

Yes - but it's not going back in. Science tests its hypotheses, keeps some, discards others, produces some new ones and the process repeats. It's an Ammonite of Truth - each chamber (theory) has more knowledge than the last. Theistic hypotheses were outgrown long ago. Modern scientific knowledge just won't fit into that chamber sized for bronze age shepherds' worldviews.

I was hoping that the seemingly well-educated Lennox would actually debate. But he preached. Preached, preached, preached. Did it well, too. If you as a listener were already religious, you would lap up the canned vomit emerging so mellifluously and continuously from his mouth the way a cat licks up cream.

In fact, the ceaseless flow of rhetoric from his mouth proved that he was not answering the questions put to the forum, but merely regurgitated very well-digested talking-points, the things he repeats day in and day out to keep his family, friends, and congregation brainwashed. (Why do you think you are required to go to church regularly? If you don't the fundamental stupidity and untruthfulness of the whole edifice of religion is very quickly proven to you. Only ceaseless, mind-numbing repetition can stop the brain from engaging -- and even that works only part of the time.)

And the next time sometimes says "Stalin/Pol Pot", I'll say, "Female Genital Mutilation", which has a score of SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION women living in agonizing pain.

Nisbet/Lennox would be interesting...

indeed.

I rather get the impression that Nisbet missed that "class" while he was a communications major.

He's in for a shocking dose of reality; a good, hard look at who is he trying to "frame" communications for, and Lennox is just the kind of guy to give it to him.

Chris, in #106 you quote Lennox: "Science came out of a theistic desire to understand the world." You accept that and then offer a caveat. I disagree. (I don't accept that.)

It seems to me the whole purpose of the human brain is to provide humans with a specialized capacity to understand the world. I suspect that we were well along that path in terms of simple tool use before religion became a significant feature of our brainscape. Chimps make and use simple tools but have no propensity for religion - that I have ever heard about.

Throwing pearls before swine, it's a competition to find out who gives the most staggeringly destructive rebuttal in the fewest words.

how's this:

PZ to Lennox:

"WTF?"

Hairhead: Tallying up atrocities still makes Lennox's point. It is a fallacious argument for Dawkins to ask us to imagine how nice the world would be without (the atrocities attributed to) religion. Without religion there is no evidence that there would fewer atrocities.

Chimps make and use simple tools but have no propensity for religion - that I have ever heard about.

you're just not talking to the right chimps.

:p

Pelican's Point, I can't help but laugh when people say that "without religion, people would still find reasons to kill each other." True enough, but those reasons are all available now, along with religion--why is religion so often their favorite?

Hairhead: Tallying up atrocities still makes Lennox's point. It is a fallacious argument for Dawkins to ask us to imagine how nice the world would be without (the atrocities attributed to) religion. Without religion there is no evidence that there would fewer atrocities.

Without dogma accepted on authority, there would be a hell of a lot fewer atrocities - because it would be that much harder to persuade people to commit them!

The format of the debate was grossly unfair to Dawkins, and an organisational disgrace.

First, a quotation from Dawkins book was read out by the chairman, and Dawkins was invited to comment on it. But since the book was published 12 months ago, Lennox had had all that time to prepare, hone and practice his attack on the quotation. Surely, at that point, Dawkins should have been given an opportunity to deal with Lennox's points; but astonishingly, the chairman moved on to the next quotation!

This absurd way of proceeding continued throughout, and the result was that Dawkins was repeatedly frustrated by having to backtrack to Lennox's previous points before he could answer the new question. Even after Dawkins had pointed out the unfairness of this, the chairman persisted in continuing in the same format. Dawkins was clearly unsettled and disadvantaged by this, as it prevented the natural flow of questions and answer. (I will be charitable, and assume that this was accidental, and not deliberately rigged).

Fortunately, Richard Dawkins still managed to dismantle Lennox's arguments, but not always with his customary facility. This had nothing to do with the 'difficulty' of Lennox's arguments, but was a direct result of frustration due to the ridiculous format employed.

Lennox's closing comments were nothing more than an admission that he believes in miracles and prefers magical thinking to reason. His gratuitous closing sermon on Christianity may, no doubt, endear him to Christian Fundies, but will surely confirm to rationalists everywhere their conviction that religious faith severely disables certain parts of otherwise able minds. Dawkins was able to capitalise on this, and hit the nail right on the head by pointing out that all the clever science and philosophy was no more than a laboured rationalisation to justify Lennox's need to believe that Jesus rose from the dead and loves him.

This was not Dawkins best performance, for the reasons given above.

Christians 3, Lions 7.

OK, who got Bingo! on Lennox? I counted all the old cannards. Tedious.

I was able to listen to it via Winamp at mms://70.85.123.2/wkesm022

Without dogma accepted on authority, there would be a hell of a lot fewer atrocities - because it would be that much harder to persuade people to commit them!

Indeed, whether one is somehow convinced Hitler was an atheist (still having troubles fathoming that one), or that he was the most spiritual Austrian ever born, there is NO arguing that he used religion in order to bolster initial support (just listen to his speeches), and create mechanisms of control in order to maintain support.

If those mechanisms weren't there to be exploited, it could only be argued hypothetically that "some other mechanism would have been exploited".

It was there, and he used it.

no different than the efforts of Bin Laden in more modern times.

you could argue that he is a good/bad Muslim, but you can't argue he is using Islam in order to further a specific agenda that he likely wouldn't be able to otherwise.

how likely would it be that 9/11 would have happened if there were no religions?

How likely would you be to volunteer as a suicide bomber if it wasn't for your peers convincing you it was "god's will", and that you would be rewarded in some kind of afterlife?

yes, you could perhaps stretch that to some forms of nationalism, but seriously, how much easier is it if the subject is already convinced they are going to be rewarded "in heaven" if they do what you say?

Caledonian & J Myers: "Why is religion so often their favorite?" Because that is the format of the emotional belief system that those societies provided. There is not much difference emotionally in the mind of a person with a gun - from belief in God or belief in communism. They both provide the highly emotional over-arching belief structure that can be harnessed for the killing of others in large quantities.

I don't think Dawkins understands that and has therefore made a framing mistake in that chapter of his book.

The problem is that there are millions of people who are happiest going through life with such an overarching belief system guiding their behavior - as opposed to rationality. Whether their society offers them a religious, political, economic system, drug/music paradigm to live in - or something else - they will embrace it because it offers a social identity that makes them feel good and if that belief leadership says kill those people - they will - gladly.

And that's why science education is so important - worldwide, not just here. And that's why religionists are so militantly opposed to "Darwinism".

Chris @106, "Science came out of a theistic desire to understand the world."

Pelican's Point @109, "It seems to me the whole purpose of the human brain is to provide humans with a specialized capacity to understand the world. I suspect that we were well along that path in terms of simple tool use before religion became a significant feature of our brainscape."

Personally I think the step Lennox makes there is almost as perverted as the step religion takes to claim morality. Religion stakes it flag in morality and says, "I did this!" and then asks how the non-religious can be moral at all. When the truth is that evolution put in a hell of a lot of elbow-grease into making morality work out. This is the same thing, religion is just taking credit for our desire to understand the world, a desire which isn't aided by religion but stopped by it. Religion seems a product of wanting to understand things cut with an intentional stance with which to view the world (not strictly speaking true, but extremely useful (I'd be astounded if evolution favored truth over function)).

It isn't that science grows out of a theistic want to understand the world. Rather we have a want to understand, and theism grew out of an attempt to plug that gap with the first bit of nonsense it could hack together without getting laughed at. Theism has served as a gap-filler, plaster for the holes of understanding and never for a good reasons. If there's nothing there there's nothing there... I'll call it a window and peer into the unknown thank you very much.

It isn't a theistic desire to understand. It's a human desire, and a theistic attempt to stop it.

The problem is that there are millions of people who are happiest going through life with such an overarching belief system guiding their behavior - as opposed to rationality.

I rather think Dawkins understands this point quite well, having made an issue of it specifically in the video series he did for the BBC.

Icthyic: Then he should have used that in his book rather than the John Lennon "Imagine a world without religion" thing - and he should have used that tonight.

Because he lost points on that one segment IMO.

By "that" I mean the appeal of strong overarching belief systems to create a feeling of security in a cruel world.

Tatarize: I agree. Good way to put it.

Here's an mp3 of the debate. Feel free to give this file a more permanent hosting.

Ok, so is the debate on youtube or some similar site yet? I'm sure it's archived--er, posted--on the net by now.

Overarching belief systems ARE religions, Pelican.

uh, I think you're missing the point.

Not only does Dawkins understand that there are millions who prefer to be deluded, it is in fact the primary basis for his writing "The God Delusion" to begin with!

It's not that he (nor anybody with half a brain) doesn't understand that rubes like to be rubes, the point he constantly makes is that it's simply better NOT to be a rube, for everyone's sake. That being a rube causes damage.

if he didn't START with that bit of knowledge firmly in place, he wouldn't have even bothered to write the book to begin with, nor continue to crusade for rationality in the face of delusion.

By "that" I mean the appeal of strong overarching belief systems to create a feeling of security in a cruel world.

so it's his fault he didn't convince you that abandoning the security blanky is a good thing for a responsible adult to do?

*shrug*

you must not have read the same book I did.

Yes, that's my point. Actually, that religions are (examples of) overarching belief systems. That's what causes most mass killings.

Yes, that's my point. Actually, that religions are (examples of) overarching belief systems.

No, it's not your point. Your point is quite different.

#128 was for Caledonian. Icthyic: I don't need convincing. I believed that before I read his book. I'm saying that his chapter asking the reader to imagine a world without religion is not carried to completion. He also needs to ask the reader to imagine a world without strong belief systems that can be harnessed to create mass atrocities. He effectively is singling out religion as *the* cause of mass atrocities - by failing to do so.

I understand that the book is called "The God Delusion" but within the "imagine a world without . . " context - he needs to place religion in the category of strong beliefs. Otherwise he is left wide open to "imagine a world without Pol Pot or Stalin" type arguments.

I'm on his side.

So I looked for any info on Lennox on YouTube to only find two quick videos, one being a sad fine tuning argument.

It never ceases to amaze me the sheer audacity one must have in order to make the following connections. 1) If the cosmological constants were even slightly different we wouldn't be here. 2) No other explanation seems more rational than to posit a god. 3)That unknown god is my god.

That last jump is my favorite. Even if we lived in a universe begun by some uncaring "prime mover" that would still be no different than a universe that began on it's own. In no way do the cosmological constants support the claim that the god of modern evangelical christianity exists, much less even a prime mover.

I'm sad, I expect so much more from Oxford.

Re: The claim that there are no morals without a god:

If morals have no value, then what kind of threat is this? Yes, we all agree that morals are a good thing. So a person who comes along and says, "You have to believe in god to have morals" thinks they're making a threat, threatening to take away morals if we don't believe in god. But by that logic, if you don't believe in god, then you don't care about morals. So there is no threat. Those religious who make this claim are simply pretending to hold some control over morality, where they can take it away from those who don't agree to believe in their god. In so doing, they actually prove that there is a morality beyond any belief in god, since otherwise no one would care about the lack of morality.

Not sure if I made my point clearly. I borrowed it from http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/04/atheism-and-charity.html

Hi, I'm a lurker.

Pelican: I don't know, and don't think you know, what you're talking about. Dawkins does directly discuss the problem of strong religion-like beliefs ala Stalin in the book. He does so to shield the very vulnerability you claim he leaves open.

Perhaps you think he didn't spend enough time discussing this issue, but he did discuss it.

Fine-tuning argument.

If various physical constants were any different, it would be a miracle if we were alive.

Therefore , there is a god.

I'm saying that his chapter asking the reader to imagine a world without religion is not carried to completion.

ah, I guess I didn't see it that way because I already knew the background for why he wrote it to begin with.

you might be right about that, but in the end, he has to balance everything he says against the religiosos claiming him to be an "angry atheist".

might be why he decides not to push as hard sometimes as he could.

It's also why I agree with the suggestion that Hitch would have been a better choice to go against Lennox.

Anthropic Fine-tuning argument.

If various physical constants were any different, life under those constants would think that if their various physical constants were any different, it would be a miracle if they were alive.

"Atheism sucks" blog's thoughts

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=14868192606851…

Tards.

Lennox uses Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot because he knows that atheists do not defend genocide.

Christians though claim that genocide is perfectly acceptable, because some people are 'termites'

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

'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.'

"Atheism sucks" blog's thoughts

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14398630&postID=14868192606851…

Tards.

from the comments in that thread:

God Bless Dr. John Lennox!

and there you have it:

why one shouldn't bother reading commentary on debate from a xian website.

Quit moonlighting here and come home, Fishboy.

Pity this page is just a ghetto for its own group of believers.

Pity the "debate" turned out not to be a debate - but surely noone was expecting anything "new" in a discussion which has had a millenium or more to run?

Pity you didn't add anything new, either.

Chimps make and use simple tools but have no propensity for religion - that I have ever heard about.

Had you looked much though.

There is not much difference emotionally in the mind of a person with a gun - from belief in God or belief in communism.

NB Communism is not atheism. It's merely another unevidenced belief system and ideology, seeking rival control over people. The masses were never called to arms by speeches praising atheism but by ones calling for equality (eg against royalty etc), unity (among the workers of the world) and freedom from oppression (which merely happened to include religion because religions are oppressive and hierarchical and parasitic and ...).

over in richarddawkins.net a commenter mentions that Lennox was reading from notes the entire time. That fits with the whole 'not so much a debate as an excuse to raise xtian talkingpoints without immediate opportunity to rebut' feel this thing has.

OK - some true honest historian correct me if I am wrong but:

1. These so-called atheists, the ones godiots refer to when they frame, did NOT launch murder, death, and destruction FOR THE SAKE OF ATHEISM per se.

2. These so-called atheists had other motivations, far apart from any atheism they had, that served their radical, fanatical, "insane", and egomaniacal personalities.

3. Atrocities to be committed need religion or religion-like thinking. All those generally referenced by the godiots built-up and performed under systems and -isms that captured, worked, and held the human mind via the mechanisms of religion. All had creeds they foisted on people. All gave credits for blind faith acceptance of their creeds and obedience to the prophets, priests, and bishops of them. "Atheism" in reference to their "ism" was bad, punishable, and highly ridiculed.

4. Atheist don't and haven't committed atrocities of historical significance because (as a prime mover) of their atheism per se. And certainly there is no creed of atheism that proposes higher-power granted power, privilege, and infallibility to any one among us.

5. On the contrary many many many atrocities and major conflicts have as their underpinning standard religions of the day. And all "aggressive" religions allow and reward people for believing that high-power granted power, privilege, and infallibility exist, paving the way for despots and maniacs to rule (example: I'd say look at Hitler's Germany, or Mussolini's Italy)

The godiot frames and can be clever and glib. They are entertainers. Their target is the faithful. Their aim is to RETAIN the flock via feel good reinforcement. They know that they will win few if any converts to their magic in the modern world. But they know they must preserve their base. At all costs - which allows them distortions, untruth, and rigged debates.

Apparently the FSM has been supplanted by a new and better deity.

http://www.thechurchofgoogle.org/

The Nine Proofs that Google is God are so inspiring.

The Dawkins/Lennox headline had me thinking that Richard was going to back Anne while she sang "Would I lie to you"

The Dawkins/Lennox headline had me thinking that Richard was going to back Anne while she sang "Would I lie to you"

that actually would have been far more entertaining than watching Lennox preach at Dawkins.

Hell, I'd pay to see that.

@ concerned Joe...

sounds about right to me, though I would make a minor correction here...

Atrocities to be committed need religion or religion-like thinking.

and say instead that atrocities, while not needing religion per se, are simply much easier to support and promote by utilizing religious organization, thinking, and structure. Though initially even mentioned in "The Art of War", I think Herman Goering may have said it best:

http://home.earthlink.net/~tjneal/goering.jpg

substitute your religion of choice where he uses "patriotism" and you have the more complete picture.

of course, Hitler quickly saw he could use both.

hmm, come to think of it, so did the modern Neocons in the US. So did Bin Laden in the Middle East.

hey, whaddya know, it still works!

someday in the not too distant future, I'm sure mentioning the Neocons will end up Godwining a thread just like the mention of "Hitler" does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Caledonian wrote: "Without dogma accepted on authority, there would be a hell of a lot fewer atrocities - because it would be that much harder to persuade people to commit them!"

Well, we'd need either (1) Fewer people with nasty ideas, or (2) Fewer people willing to listen to and follow the nasty ideas. Since I'm not at all sure religion is a cause, rather than an effect, of (1) or (2), I'm not personally able to conclude the world *can* be made better (i.e., fewer atrocities) by concerted efforts on behalf of (1) or (2). What if it is "human nature" for some to have nasty ideas, and others to follow them? (The Milgram experiments and others along similar lines may be evidence of (2), for example.)

Since I'm not at all sure religion is a cause, rather than an effect, of (1) or (2),

it's both a cause and an effect.

it's a self-reinforcing delusion, and can also be enabled by others.

it's exactly why it's so damn prevalent as a meme.

Another dog-and-pony show where some Lies For Jesus and it's skewed against the person who is against the Religious Orthodoxy... Why am I not surprised.

The procedural method of this 'debate' was scandalous, and seriously disadvantage Dawkins - and what is more, I strongly suspect that this was deliberate.

Surely, Dawkins would never have agreed to a debate format in which the the rules systematically denied him an automatic right of reply to his opponent! I can't help thinking that Dawkins was set up. It is preposterous that Lennox gets to say all he wants to without interruption, then the moderator immediately moves on to a completely new question!

Fortunately, Richard spotted what was going on and did his best to overcome this gross unfairness without complaint, but it was very clear that he was knocked off course and unsettled by this dirty trick. He had to fight his corner with one-and-a-half arms tied behind his back.

As it happened, Lennox was so pathetic that he could only possibly appeal to the irrationality of the religious. His inability to resist lapsing into Bible-thumping and fundamentalist-style preaching in his closing remarks was quite hilarious, and quite sufficient to expose the real reasons for his irrational mental gymnastics of the earlier part of the debate.

I think Richard should complain formally to the organisers for the way in which they biased the discussion. For Christ's sake, the rules of public debate are simple and very well established; no amount of incompetence on behalf of the organisers could have got it THAT wrong by accident.

Hairhead: Tallying up atrocities still makes Lennox's point. It is a fallacious argument for Dawkins to ask us to imagine how nice the world would be without (the atrocities attributed to) religion. Without religion there is no evidence that there would fewer atrocities.

Posted by: Pelican's Point | October 3, 2007 10:58 PM

North America, especially in Spanish colonized lands has a brutal history of Catholic monks performing brutally. And I could go on for hundreds of examples where religion was the primary cause, primary supporting cause, or sole cause, of the conflict.

In other words, I call Bullshit. And History supports me.

The comments page evidently is a Christian club - my comments haven't shown after ten minutes of "shortly".

Cowardice, thy name is Xian!

Icthyic #135 "It's also why I agree with the suggestion that Hitch would have been a better choice to go against Lennox."

Yeah, but the Christians running the show wouldn't have been able to get funding to produce a show where there's a high risk that their icon will be demolished by an intelligent "drunk" as they see him. Can't have that.

I was really glad this happened just as I finished reading "The God Delusion", I've always loved Dawkins' writing. Non-fiction at that level is very difficult to do well IMO - and he is a master. But I'd love to see Hitchens and Lennox have a go.

SEF # 143 "have you looked much though?"

"dozens of chimpanzee waterfall displays in which males and occasionally females sway and dance and swing at the base of the falls in reaction to the rushing water."

I bet they'd love Wayne Hancock. Associating religion with emotion is valid but that doesn't mean they are the same thing. Cool website though.

Moses #154 "North America, especially in Spanish colonized lands has a brutal history of Catholic monks performing brutally. And I could go on for hundreds of examples where religion was the primary cause, primary supporting cause, or sole cause, of the conflict. - In other words, I call Bullshit. And History supports me."

You missed the point. Humans are bad-assed MF'ers when it comes to sharing resources with out-groups. We'd rather kill them. We evolved a sense of morality that allows us to co-exist in small communities where genes are largely shared between members. We also evolved a moral sense that justifies killing members of out-groups with whom we don't share as many genes.

Religion or politics or whatever - are just narratives we create to make that morality more compelling and easier to pass on and remember. Religion is a frame - for both coexisting and killing - depending on circumstances. But strong belief systems don't have to form around supernatural beings - though they often do.

All religions are not intrinsically inclined to mass murder - but that's the psychological need that some religions fulfill. But almost any religion can step up to fulfill that role when resources are scarce and survival of the in-group is threatened.

Many people will seek and find that "killing" narrative anyway because they need it to part of their psychological landscape. This is more true of people who are psychologically conservative - who tend to see the world as a threatening place. For them atheistic communism would work just as well as Islamic Wahabism. It's just a matter of what particular narratives their society offers them.

And remember these things are not constants in any of us. As they say, "A conservative is a liberal whose been mugged."

OK - Here's a better way to put it.

Religions or any grand belief system like communism - are narratives that we create to make our sense of morality more compelling and easier to remember and pass on.

They mirror our evolved sense of morality which includes two facets - the morality of coexisting with our in-group and the morality of conflict with out-groups.

As a group faces threats and challenges from outside - the conflict centered parts of their belief system will grow to justify the killing of their enemies. We will hear versions of, "the only good commie is a dead commie".

When times are good, the coexisting parts will thrive and we will hear about good samaritans and sermons on the mount.

But, no matter what the current conditions are there are some in every society and at every time who will prefer one over the other.

And remember these things are not constants in any of us. As they say, "A conservative is a liberal whose been mugged."

Doesn't say much for liberals - which seems about right.

'over in richarddawkins.net a commenter mentions that Lennox was reading from notes the entire time.'

You mean only one side was told in advance which passages from The God Delusion were going to be discussed?

Not that it really matters, but Lennox's 2 MAs and 3 doctorates are not quite as impressive as they appear. Oxford and Cambridge have an agreement whereby if you have an earned MA/doctorate (PhD from Cambridge, DPhil from Oxford) from one and you go to the other to teach/research, you are given the equivalent degrees from the second institution. (I know quite a few people with this arrangement. It is not at all uncommon and most people when they go to another country will drop the the unearned degrees from their cv etc.) His DSc is just an honorary degree. So he really has earned just an MA/PhD.

A while ago, "The Friendly Atheist" had a list of questions that atheists are commonly asked.

Of course this was one of them:
"Weren't some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?"

This was my answer:
"The worst atrocities in all of human history were committed by humans. What's your point?
Note: Hitler was not an atheist. (Don't kid yourself, that's who you meant)"

The deep state of denial here over the atheist regime's tendency to commit mass slaughter is truly amusing. Even Hitchens, when pressed, admits that it's impossible to call Marxism a religion, or near-religion, or a religion-like faith or whatever you want to call it in order to wash your co-irreligionists bloody hands clean.

"No, it's not a religion; it is defined as a non-belief in the supernatural and as a repudiation of anything could be called a faith. Marxism's great mistake was it believed it had found material evidence for a past, a present and a future; and that material means
alone could install it. You could say that that was a terrible idea, but you can't call it a religion."
- Christopher Hitchens, June 1, 2007

Moreover, anyone with a working knowledge of French, Spanish or Russian history knows that many Communist crimes were committed specifically "in the name of atheism". There are numerous examples of priests being murdered and churches being demolished specifically in order to prove that God did not exist.

Granted, most atheists don't want to kill loads of people nor will they ever harm anyone. But the historical record shows that nearly two-thirds of the specific sort of atheist who wants to rule over his fellow human beings does, and no amount of semantic tap-dancing will get around that.

But the historical record shows that nearly two-thirds of the specific sort of atheist who wants to rule over his fellow human beings does, and no amount of semantic tap-dancing will get around that.

Sir I am not an atheist and this is silly. 2/3rds of a specific sort of atheist?

These folks did not kill for atheism, atheism is simply non belief. Nothing more nothing less. There is no dogma to kill for in this case.

The men you mention wanted power and control. Priests held power over some people, they eliminated the competition. The same as priests do to other priests and religions.

It's the desire for power and control not atheism that does these things.

'There are numerous examples of priests being murdered and churches being demolished specifically in order to prove that God did not exist.'

Those old Judeo-Christian values have left a deep imprint on atheistic morality.

If somebody's God does not exist, the Judeo-Christian thing to do is mock them and then kill them.

1 Kings 18

Then they called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. "O Baal, answer us!" they shouted. But there was no response; no one answered. And they danced around the altar they had made.

At noon Elijah began to taunt them. "Shout louder!" he said. "Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened."...

.... Then Elijah commanded them, "Seize the prophets of Baal. Don't let anyone get away!" They seized them, and Elijah had them brought down to the Kishon Valley and slaughtered there.

-------------------------------
Killing people to show a god did not exist.

Why, this Elijah must have been one of those pesky atheists....

Well #166 is about as effective a rebutal as is possible to that question.

Atheists committed more mass murders through history!

No, believers committed more mass murders through history!

Boooorrriinnnng.

Marxism never was a religion. It was the economic and social beginnings that were then twisted and lead to the totalitarian state of communism. Marxism itself, as Hitchens states, can be implemented on it's own as it should be, and still be an awful idea, but in no way is it a religion. State worship and presonality cult bullshit needs to be added for that to occur, and that is what communism gave.

But in no way is that a point against marxism.

Well Jud, thankfully there's evidence on which to judge which assertion is correct.

#153 "The procedural method of this 'debate' was scandalous, and seriously disadvantage Dawkins - and what is more, I strongly suspect that this was deliberate".

I've been there at the debate last night. Yes, it seems that the procedure was not intended to be a real debate, but Richard Dawkins managed to shift it closer to what the debate is supposed to be. He didn't look disadvantaged at all. Quite opposite, Dr. Lennox looked awkward on several occasions, when he had to respond to Dawkins' comments. It looked like he was prepared to make a single statement on each topic, but not to rebut unplanned comments. On the other side, Richard Dawkins speaks as he thinks, and I enjoyed watching this. Dr. Lennox was trying to respond quickly, and then find something appropriate to read from his notes - yes, he seemed to be reading from the notes all the time. And he screwed up his whole case by the final statement about resurrection etc - it was so-o-o out of place. Dr. Dawkins was obviously upset, and I deeply share his emotions. After the debate, the line to get the books signed by Dawkins was much-much longer than the line of people willing to talk to Lennox. I was surprised to see so many Dawkins supporters at the debate in Alabama :)

I was as shocked as Olga to see so many Dawkins supporters. That first thundering round of applause for the good Professor definitely took a lot of the pucker out of my hind end.

Steven Carr, I wonder if the Christian Cadre is nuanced enough to see that that argument justifies any group who see Christians as 'very bad people' to exterminate them in order enjoy the fruits of the United States.

My guess is No.

His little blurb at the beginning was cute: "Knowing full well that some atheist will accuse me of justifying genocide...." He then goes on to show just how well he studied his little bible and all the evidence that the Canaanites were "very bad people". I mean, who but someone who hasn't studied the bible hard enough to know just how "very bad" the Canaanites were could possibly call their extermination unjust? I mean, they couldn't even be converted.

Oh gosh, I hope those damn Muslims aren't reading this. They might get the wrong idea about how killing people who you think are bad and inconvertable is just. It's only just when the Right God™ says it is.

Apparently, to a Christian, 'nuanced' means 'I don't understand the meaning of hypocrisy.'

I wish I could say this was something new.

Brownian, I share your distain. Ever since I became an atheist so many years ago, I've always kept myself philisophically open to new arguments and new information that could change my views, if at the very least to avoid the charges of arrogance and dogmatism. I expected at least a good challenge from an Oxford MA, P.hD. But I am more than angry to see that even he is no better than your dime a dozen apologist. In some sense it makes me sad, I want, I expect a good intellectual fight from these people who've spend centuries fighting off heresy after heresy and thus they should be talented at argument if nothing else. But debate after debate I'm left feeling let down. I always get tense and interested when I think I hear an argument that I haven't heard before. But in the end, in my few years of voratious reading, I've heard it all. And I'm truely upset about it. I guess, if we're supposed to be in this hard fought battle for rights and reason, shouldn't the other side be more formitable?

Now after rereading this, I realize you may not have been talking about this at all. But it's what I've been thinking nonetheless. Cheers, Michael

"Doesn't say much for liberals."

Or conservatives, if true. But of course it isn't.

#97

That's the thing, though: Dawkins is a nice guy,hat's the thing, though: Dawkins is a nice guy, but that won't stop anyone from claiming he's "hate-filled", or that he's the antichrist.

Funny, that's exactly how a religious colleague phrased it ("hate-filled"), despite never having heard of Dawkins before this "debate"

#107

If you as a listener were already religious, you would lap up the canned vomit emerging so mellifluously and continuously from his mouth the way a cat licks up cream.

Same guy I'm describing aboce - who thought Dawkins was "hate-filled" - loved how Lennox "destroyed" Dawkins. So you're exactly right, here.

If you as a listener were already religious, you would lap up the canned vomit emerging so mellifluously and continuously from his mouth the way a cat licks up cream.

And the cheerleading for Dawkins here is entirely different in kind because it's, well, right and entirely objective, of course.

Of course.

You're catching on Sinbad.

Rick, ask your coworker which of Lennox's rhetorical fallacies was his favorite. There were many to chose from, so be sure to give him some time to respond.Sinbad, "cheerleading" is not the appropriate term here, as it implies support irrespective of performance.

torrent file for the debate here.

Very frustrating "debate" indeed. I hated Lennox's use of the word "atheism". How can atheism cause, or do anything? Dawkins' rebut that him not believing in Zeus causes no harm (or something to that effect) really hit it home though.

Dawkins is no match for Christianity.
Lenox obviously won. But this is not simply Lenox, Christianity won!
It's dangerous to live in the world where Dawkins rules!
I hope this wave of 'new atheism' will pass soon, or else we are screwed.

I hope this new wave of athiesm THRIVES... or else this country is screwed. The delusional godbots need to be rendered harmless and inconsequential.

Let logic and reason rule the day.

'over in richarddawkins.net a commenter mentions that Lennox was reading from notes the entire time.'

You mean only one side was told in advance which passages from The God Delusion were going to be discussed?