Live Debate Right Now Betwwen Dawkins and Lennox

[vhawk01]

Ok, he is sort of getting to it now. He is saying that Stalin and Mao were objectively illogical and wrong in the genocides they committed, while it would be impossible for a Christian or Muslim to say that Osama bin Laden was objectively wrong or incorrect or illogical.

[Roland32]

I am happy that he is ahndeling it the way he is ... but I am so SICK of that arguement! I truely feel it is intellectually dishonest, Atheism is a faith as well arguement hear we go.

[tpir]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, he is sort of getting to it now. He is saying that Stalin and Mao were objectively illogical and wrong in the genocides they committed, while it would be impossible for a Christian or Muslim to say that Osama bin Laden was objectively wrong or incorrect or illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
he is articulating this point horribly.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, he is sort of getting to it now. He is saying that Stalin and Mao were objectively illogical and wrong in the genocides they committed, while it would be impossible for a Christian or Muslim to say that Osama bin Laden was objectively wrong or incorrect or illogical.

[/ QUOTE ]
he is articulating this point horribly.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know. Although he did nail this guy on the equivocating of faith between atheism and theism.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so here is the perfect counterargument to this Stalin/Mao rebuttal:

When Dawkins or Harris say that religion leads to all these problems, what they mean is FAITH leads to all of these problems. Most religious people are perfectly nice, but they revere faith, and once you've gone down the road of revering faith it is now IMPOSSIBLE to condemn the fanatical faith of anyone. Rationalists would be the FIRST ones to tear apart Stalin and Mao, and their form of atheism, because they are the only ones who are CAPABLE of doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's only impossible from a rationalist perspective. If you believe (as faith-ists often do) that they have not only a fault-free guide to "true faith" but the only fault-free guide. Then they can also get stuck into Stalin and Mao. Yes it's circular, but I think your argument is only strong if you already accept the premise that rationality is the best guide to distinguishing between true and false claims. (In other words, it's also circular).

[ QUOTE ]
The faith-ists could say whatever they wanted, but they would have to admit that Mao and Stalin's faith was just as legitimate as theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if legitimacy comes from the bible or some other source.

[Roland32]

Well I must admit, while I am enjoying the debate, I expected much more from an Oxford Professor, will he put forth one argument that has not been refuted? Let alone an argemunet that has not been refuted before we were born?


I feel as though he is almost giving the step by step "strawmen" that Sam Harris terrorizes in End of Faith. Has he read it? I can't imagine that he hasn't.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so here is the perfect counterargument to this Stalin/Mao rebuttal:

When Dawkins or Harris say that religion leads to all these problems, what they mean is FAITH leads to all of these problems. Most religious people are perfectly nice, but they revere faith, and once you've gone down the road of revering faith it is now IMPOSSIBLE to condemn the fanatical faith of anyone. Rationalists would be the FIRST ones to tear apart Stalin and Mao, and their form of atheism, because they are the only ones who are CAPABLE of doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's only impossible from a rationalist perspective. If you believe (as faith-ists often do) that they have not only a fault-free guide to "true faith" but the only fault-free guide. Then they can also get stuck into Stalin and Mao. Yes it's circular, but I think your argument is only strong if you already accept the premise that rationality is the best guide to distinguishing between true and false claims. (In other words, it's also circular).

[ QUOTE ]
The faith-ists could say whatever they wanted, but they would have to admit that Mao and Stalin's faith was just as legitimate as theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if legitimacy comes from the bible or some other source.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, but most theists are very uncomfortable saying that they know 100% that their belief is the correct one and all the others are wrong and they can't tell you why but it just is. At least in public.

They are currently talking about one of my favorite points, the NotReady Appeal to the Non-Existence of Capital E Evil.

If I'm Dawkins here I just say "Yeah....so Pol Pot isn't Capital E Evil. WTF cares? Do YOU want to be exterminated? Because I don't. So we should probably stop guys like Pol Pot right? Even if we can't call him Capital E Evil?"

[Roland32]

First time I had heard the condom argument against relative morality. I like it, I think, would like to hear it again.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so here is the perfect counterargument to this Stalin/Mao rebuttal:

When Dawkins or Harris say that religion leads to all these problems, what they mean is FAITH leads to all of these problems. Most religious people are perfectly nice, but they revere faith, and once you've gone down the road of revering faith it is now IMPOSSIBLE to condemn the fanatical faith of anyone. Rationalists would be the FIRST ones to tear apart Stalin and Mao, and their form of atheism, because they are the only ones who are CAPABLE of doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's only impossible from a rationalist perspective. If you believe (as faith-ists often do) that they have not only a fault-free guide to "true faith" but the only fault-free guide. Then they can also get stuck into Stalin and Mao. Yes it's circular, but I think your argument is only strong if you already accept the premise that rationality is the best guide to distinguishing between true and false claims. (In other words, it's also circular).

[ QUOTE ]
The faith-ists could say whatever they wanted, but they would have to admit that Mao and Stalin's faith was just as legitimate as theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not if legitimacy comes from the bible or some other source.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do want to ask one question here. If you accept that faith is a legitimate method for determining truth, how can you then, RATIONALLY, argue that someone elses faith is incorrect? Or do you just say "I have faith that they are incorrect." And when I say "Well, he has faith that you are incorrect, how can we resolve this?" can you simply say "Faith?" It sort of seems to lead to the theist saying everyone else is lying. It also grinds to a halt any discussion about morality.

[Roland32]

Okay the christian gets points on the good samaritan argument. That is something that Science has yet to figure out, and is in direct confrontation, apparently, to dawiniasm. Agree, disagree?

Unfortunately he glosses over it, should of hammered it home.