Comments on: William Lane Craig & Bill Cooke Public Debate (Palmy)

By: Just in – the Palmy Debate | MandM

Just in – the Palmy Debate | MandM — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 00:14:40 +0000

[...] of Confusion wrote this review, reproduced in part [...]

By: David Morell Stevenson

David Morell Stevenson — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:18:08 +0000

Please don`t mention the topic of “tax exempt status” while I have a pace maker. Talk about indiscriminate Government (taxpayer) largesse on such an ill-defined Sacred Cow.!

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:04:21 +0000

Mind you, in New Zealand we are all financing those who wish to spend their time in such argument and hone their skill at it – providing they stick to ’supernatural’ thinking – through their tax exempt status.

We have no choice. That’s a human rights question.

By: Ken

Ken — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 00:04:18 +0000

We have not choice. That’s a human rights question.

By: David Morell Stevenson

David Morell Stevenson — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 21:14:51 +0000

In Israel Ultra Orthodox Seminarians become life-time students of Hebrew Scriptures. They are paid by the Government to pursue those studies which can be for up to 17 hours a day for the term of their natural lives as they divorce themselves from everyday life regressing into stone age thinking. Apart from raising large families as a secondary interest. Their cloistered existence is paid for by secularist taxpayers whether the the latter like it or not while all hell breaks loose around them. They become expert at arguing the semantics of their religion (akin to attempting to holding quick silver in one`s fingers for a length of time).
The secularists should not bother with the futility of debating or engaging with them in a pointless exercise involving “Holy” books of dubious origin and authorship. There have been centuries for editors subsequently to revise,revise and revise again those texts. to ensure they remain metaphorical (aka quicksilver). Apologists can remain protected by the comfort of ambiguity and nuance.

Elsewhere, in the west, it surprises me that those who question and debate the Bible even bother. They are often debating with people whose bread and butter existence is in the labyrinth of that ambiguity and vague otherworld. Better for atheists and doubters to leave Biblical discourse to those christians in the 30,000 odd sects and divisions of christianity who will still be arguing their religious texts centuries from now (all else being well). Many would make good lawyers in the real world . Those who so often succeed in the courtroom even defending the indefensible. (Cooke v Craig)

Better for reasoned doubters to stick to solid philosophy and, if so inclined, question the authorship, truth and politics behind those same scriptures.

By: Carrie

Carrie — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:39:23 +0000

Professor Raymond Bradley’s position is the subject of two posts over at MandM http://mandmandmandm.blogspot.com.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 23:16:50 +0000

I agree that Dawkins may not do well in such debates either – despite his clear moral and intellectual advantages. And he does have a good point about such debates giving undue credit.

I wonder how Lawrence Krauss would go? His approach is one of seduction rather than confrontation.

By: David Morell Stevenson

David Morell Stevenson — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 09:06:33 +0000

Brian,

Just a wild guess. But was that your comment I just read on John Loftus`s Debunking Christianity site? I am waiting to see interesting readers comment follow. However, it may be just of Ho Hum importance. They can be a bit cerebral. Remember they have been vehement defenders of both sides.

Ian,

Richard Dawkins can come across as a little too Patrician and intolerant for general public consumption. But we have to appreciate his exhausting workload. He is aging so, rather than worry too much about a national spokesperson in New Zealand , let us hope that a worthy successor is found . His appointment by Charles Simonyi (no doubt backed by Bill Gates) was an inspired move. What a pity that Oxford University had not had a similar appointment two or three centuries ago. What a different world it might have been today.

Meantime I adopt the banner suggested by Michael Shermer. Like the forthcoming GUT it has to be so simple but beautifully true

” I don`t know; but nor do you know”

But I would further argue that belief is not synonymous with truth or knowing.

In faulting the words of the hymn “I know my redeemer liveth”

No matter what mantras religion uses it does not know. No matter how it contorts itself into thousands of divisions and sects, it still does not know. No matter how big their congregations nor how grand their places of worship they do not know. No matter how necessary to their psyches are their devotions they do not know. No matter how closely or frequently they assemble together for comfort – they do not know.

Nobody knows ! Without empirical evidence even science knows nothing. Now, that is sheer unadulterated harsh fact.

By: Brian

Brian — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 07:47:46 +0000

Full MP3 Audio of the William Lane Craig vs Bill Cooke debate can be found here.

By: Ian

Ian — Mon, 23 Jun 2008 05:57:58 +0000

Dawkins refuses to debate the issue because he believes it gives their position undue credit. On one hand I agree but on the other hand someone has to oppose it lol.

I suspect Cooke may well have drawn “the one and only straw” in this, which brings us back to the messy dilemma of finding a spokesperson for NZ atheism.