Melvyn Bragg puts Richard Dawkins in his place!!

Non sequitur · Mar 23, 2012

iLogos said:
When ever a atheist makes it a personal mission to discredit religion and Christianity on top of the list, in effect has created his own religion and is guilty of the very same accusations he makes against religion. Ignorance, hate, anger are equal opportunity employers!

Uh, huh. What's your definition of "religion"?

Nobody has the monopoly on ignorance, hate, and anger, so it's rather universal. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Also, it's not a specific trait to any religion.

iLogos · Mar 23, 2012

Non sequitur said:
Uh, huh. What's your definition of "religion"?

Nobody has the monopoly on ignorance, hate, and anger, so it's rather universal. Not sure what that has to do with anything.

Also, it's not a specific trait to any religion.

It is a specific trait with atheists on a mission and also religious fanatics. Yes I put them both in the same boat. They have more in common then they realize lol

Non sequitur · Mar 23, 2012

Non sequitur said:
What's your definition of "religion"?

iLogos said:
It is a specific trait with atheists on a mission and also religious fanatics. Yes I put them both in the same boat. They have more in common then they realize lol

ROFLCOPTER!!!

Anyway...

So, Jainism and Buddhism are not religions, by your definition. Very interesting thing you do...

iLogos · Mar 23, 2012

Non sequitur said:
ROFLCOPTER!!!

Anyway...

So, Jainism and Buddhism are not religions, by your definition. Very interesting thing you do...

I said no such thing. perhaps u should do less ROTF and pay closer attention

Non sequitur · Mar 23, 2012

iLogos said:
I said no such thing. perhaps u should do less ROTF and pay closer attention

I asked what your definition of religion was.

You said, "It is a specific trait with atheists on a mission and also religious fanatics".

Therefore, atheists and religious fanatics are religious, all other are not.

Please pay closer attention to what you say.

iLogos · Mar 23, 2012

Non sequitur said:
I asked what your definition of religion was.

You said, "It is a specific trait with atheists on a mission and also religious fanatics".

Therefore, atheists and religious fanatics are religious, all other are not.

Please pay closer attention to what you say.

You need to follow better.

That was not my definition of religion.

I ignored you silly request for a definition. Seems all u do is ask for definitions. Don't u know what any thing means? Google it then.

My post was a observation I made and a truth I might add that fits most atheists on a mission and religious fanatics, and please, don't ask me for my definition of fanatics. Try using some common sense once in awhile.

Non sequitur · Mar 23, 2012

iLogos said:
You need to follow better.

That was not my definition of religion.

I ignored you silly request for a definition. Seems all u do is ask for definitions. Don't u know what any thing means? Google it then.

My post was a observation I made and a truth I might add that fits most atheists on a mission and religious fanatics, and please, don't ask me for my definition of fanatics. Try using some common sense once in awhile.

It was the definition you provided, as your definition for religion, when asked the definition of religion.

Cut and dry.

Don't say you ignored me... but replied with, "it is...". Stop backpedaling, it makes you look insincere.

Go away, now.

Bish bash bosh · Mar 24, 2012

ianb321red said:
..

... keep his unwanted, ill-informed and ignorant anti-religious views to himself.

Guffaw, lol, pmsl, now that's the greatest example of hypocrisy I've seen in a very long time.

Bish bash bosh · Mar 24, 2012

ianb321red said:
No I do not.

And take it from me Ian should know,he gets put in his place often enough on here.

Bish

Bish bash bosh · Mar 24, 2012

Non sequitur said:
Nobody has the monopoly on ignorance, hate, and anger, so it's rather universal.

Also, it's not a specific trait to any religion.

Concur.

I would even go farther and suggest that no religion contains ignorance, hate... - unless you include the megalomaniac of the NT - However the ignorance and hate humanity encounters today arises from the misconstrued interpretations individuals tease out of their various `holy books`.

Bish

Nabobalis · Mar 24, 2012

ianb321red said:
William Lane Craig would pwn him

Sorry, what? Have you ever seen him speak? It is like watching a train wreck which leads to genocide.

ianb321red · Mar 25, 2012

Nabobalis said:
Sorry, what? Have you ever seen him speak? It is like watching a train wreck which leads to genocide.

Your mate Peter Atkins gets pwned here:

Dr William Lane Craig vs Dr Peter Atkins highlight - YouTube

ianb321red · Mar 25, 2012

Nabobalis said:
Sorry, what? Have you ever seen him speak? It is like watching a train wreck which leads to genocide.

And also, the following from an atheist website reviewing Lane Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens:

"The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."

The Craig-Hitchens Debate

So, to answer your question - yes, I have heard him speak many times both in person and via internet sites.

And would add the following about Lane Craig - he always keeps his integrity and never resorts to personal attacks and jibes which seem to be the hallmark of many of his opponents.

ianb321red · Mar 25, 2012

This next clip really is embarrassing for Secular Humanists.

Paul Kurtz who is president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, and is generalll regarded as the father of Secular Humanism, gets absolutely pummelled by renowned theolgian/ apologist Norman Geisler - on pretty much every single topic they debate:

Secular Humanism vs Christianity (Paul Kurtz vs Norman Geisler) - YouTube

Nabobalis · Mar 25, 2012

ianb321red said:
And would add the following about Lane Craig - he always keeps his integrity and never resorts to personal attacks and jibes which seem to be the hallmark of many of his opponents.

You mean how he supports genocide as long as god commands it?

Personally I prefer written debates; you can check sources and arguments. When it comes to oral debates it comes down purely to oratory skill and nothing else.

artybloke · Mar 25, 2012

The problem with a lot of these 'debates' is that they are often two mutually misunderstanding points of view, both sides have a tendency to go for the worst rather than the best of their 'opposition', and you end up with two sides talking at cross purposes with each other.

Christians are not all going to agree with Lane Craig and I doubt all atheists like Dawkins. Some find his stance over-confrontational; just as some Christians would be appalled at Lane Craig's views. But it's so much more fun to get rent-a-gob fundies and atheists to shout at one another than actually engage in anything like a dialogue...

What, apart from making for good television, is the point of these 'debates'?

Non sequitur · Mar 25, 2012

ianb321red said:
And also, the following from an atheist website reviewing Lane Craig's debate with Christopher Hitchens:

"The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."

The Craig-Hitchens Debate

I don't see how that changes anything...

ianb321red said:
And would add the following about Lane Craig - he always keeps his integrity and never resorts to personal attacks and jibes which seem to be the hallmark of many of his opponents.

He is a condescending a-word; just watched him last night.

His opposition gives arguments, that refute his claims. Then every time it's his turn, he starts off with:

*subdued laugh and grin* "Well, it appears that my opponent hasn't really provided any thing contradicting ________" *subdued laugh and grin* "I mean, I wish he had, but he simply hasn't!"

E v e r y t i m e

He needs a good punch to the kidney, for being such a cocky a-word...

ianb321red · Mar 25, 2012

Nabobalis said:
You mean how he supports genocide as long as god commands it?

....that's the trolling I previously mentioned...

Have you or Dawkins or any other atheist realised the irony of your supposed "argument" regarding the nature of the Christian God - you know, the one you claim doesn't actually exist?

And isn't it interesting that this assessment of God comes from a Christian text?

I mean, have you ever considered why Christianity/ Judaism would it paint such (seemingly) negative picture of it's own God?
Do you not think a bit of discreet censorship/ editing might have made things a bit easier from a PR point of view?

It's also interesting that you are seemingly more than happy to except this view of God as based on fact. Is it because it portrays Christianity, or at least the God of Christianity in a seemingly negative light?

Are you so excepting of (the many) other accounts of God's nature that are a less bitter pill to swallow? Or is it just the negative ones you'll be happy to accept as true?

Answer me this!

ianb321red · Mar 25, 2012

Non sequitur said:
I don't see how that changes anything...

He is a condescending a-word; just watched him last night.

His opposition gives arguments, that refute his claims. Then every time it's his turn, he starts off with:

*subdued laugh and grin* "Well, it appears that my opponent hasn't really provided any thing contradicting ________" *subdued laugh and grin* "I mean, I wish he had, but he simply hasn't!"

E v e r y t i m e

He needs a good punch to the kidney, for being such a cocky a-word...

Maybe, maybe not.
I'm not saying he hasn't got his flaws.

Doesn't for one minute detract from his superior knowledge and debating style versus anyone else that I've seen him debate.

An atheist forum I was viewing recently had a thread asking who was the best atheist debater.
The overwhelming consensus was that Hitchens was.
If you watch the Hitchens V Craig debate you'll see why it is painfully obvious why Dawkins and Toynbee and Grayling all declined to debate him.

You can troll all you want, but actions speak louder than words....

Bish bash bosh · Mar 25, 2012

ianb321red said:
You can troll all you want, but actions speak louder than words....

I would concur with that, so why doesn't the almighty one show us some hard action?

Bish

Melvyn Bragg puts Richard Dawkins in his place!!

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Gal 5:16 So Walk In The Spirit!

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Gal 5:16 So Walk In The Spirit!

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Gal 5:16 So Walk In The Spirit!

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Nabobalis

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Nabobalis

Guest

Well-Known Member

Wokest Bae Of The Forum

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads