Ding ding ding.

NR, read this, then read it again, then draw a parallel to poker, then read this a third time. Then after all is said and done, compare it to your (non-scientific) method of seeking truth.

Why are you so excited by this? I've never said anything different. You asked what is a non-scientific truth. The scientific method is a non-scientific truth. It is based on non-scientific truths. One reason the Greeks and Romans didn't make much progress in science is because they didn't have the non-scientific truth that there is order in the universe and that experimenting can discover truths about the universe. They thought that empirical reality could be discovered through thought alone. And a case could be made that it was theism in both the Christian and Islamic worlds that provided the philosophical foundations for the scientific revolution. That IS another thread and the reality is far from simplistic, but a brief survey of the precursors to the Enlightenment will reveal just how much the church was involved in promoting science.

I took a brief look at his mission statement. Most of the goals seemed to involve primarily the promotion of atheism in one form or another which I guess for Dawkins is considered charity. Number 7 did provide for the channeling of funds from donors through his organization for emergency relief - because so many donors don't like to help people through religious organizations, according to Dawkins.

OK, I would call that lifting his little finger, sorta, kinda, maybe.

If that gets him out of the "pompous asswhole" category, maybe what Warren does will serve him the same?

I have never understood the debate fetishization of theists/creationists, might as well make it a dance competition. Actually, I guess I sort of do understand. Debates are pretty much the shallowest form of communication possible so they are the best way to communicate shallow ideas.

No one claims debate is the best way to communicate. I would be just as happy to see Dawkins and Craig sit down and have a discussion. But what happens when two opposing sides do that is basically an uncontrolled debate. So better to make it formal, with rules, so both parties know what to expect. And there is a very good result that is potential with every debate. For the same reason the U.S. decided on the adversary method for it's legal system rather than the inquisitorial.

And I have never understood why people who use labels like fetish with no substance or explanation or defense think they have communicated anything.

Is a quantum vacuum truly nothing? That there is energy in a vacuum seems to imply that a vacuum is not absolutely nothing.

You keep talking about how Craig mops the floor with XXXX in whatever debate and so and so is afraid of him blah blah blah. I have never heard one, but it seems that it is disputed that he is really doing this good of a job, based on other posters. And even if it was true it is irrelevant to your position since debates for the public are dumb, yet you keep bringing it up. Fetish is the correct word.

I agree with Max about the general quality of debates - their chief appeal is that they can be fun. The informal discussions I've seen with Harris and that Rabbi whose name escapes me, and similar videos, have contained vastly more interesting discussions, due in large part to the freedom of flow that the conversational format allows.

As a side note, I happen to think the adversarial system of trial is outdated. I know that South Africa has a 'Truth Commission', and I know India abolished trial by jury maybe fifty years ago, and I don't know how effective their legal systems are (I don't even know, tbh, if a Truth Commission is all SA has, or if that's just for Apartheid-related inquiries), but I honestly believe a system where twelve laymen are forced to decide which set of lies they'd rather believe could stand some serious improvement as a means of administering justice.

Did I say anything about a jury?

I've also said many times I don't care who "wins" the debate on technical grounds. I was looking forward to both the Carrier and Ayala debates, even though I genuinely thought there was a chance Craig would have difficulty. I was disappointed mainly BECAUSE the opposition was so unprepared and inept. A serious and well run debate between knowledgeable and competent debaters can be one of the best ways of testing ideas and exposing weaknesses. I keep harping on Dawkins and his fear of Craig for precisely that reason. Craig would mop the floor with Dawkins, not because he's a better debater (which he is, by light years), but because Dawkins is such an idiot but gets away with it because he's never tested - he interviews pushovers and lamebrains and comes off looking like he knows what he's talking about - a true coward because he knows he couldn't stand up to any real intellectual heat.

Didn't I say something about a side note?

Fine, I'll just ignore anything in your future posts that aren't on the main issue.

My point is it really doesn't even matter. There isn't even an objective criteria to who wins. I really think Craig is a moron, who hasn't bothered to think even superficially about cosmology and them makes arguments that are really not even wrong. I strongly doubt dawkins is afraid of him because I don't think many people who are not christians even respect him. I know I dont.

Unintentional irony?

I disagree that Craig is a moron, I think he is quite bright and exceptionally clever and well spoken. I have said before and will say it again now, his debates are full of smoke and mirrors. Confidence and eloquence mask the frailty of his arguments. His debates are filled with personal attacks and he will try and tarnish his opponent before he even opens his mouth, framing the argument his opponent will make based on past experience (maybe this is an acceptable technique in debating, I'm not sure.)

He will often posit a bunch of premises as accepted - even if they are not - and draw conclusions from them.

He is, however, unquestionably bright, extremely well-read and a fierce opponent. To call him a moron is to severely underestimate him. I agree that he "wins" debates, but it is because he comes across better than his opponents, who are often not very adept at attacking his style and clearly do not debate as often as he does.

Still, a very impressive man, IMO.

Craig debates usually go like this:

Craig: I believe that Christianity is right because the bible says so. God is infallible because the bible said so. the bible is right because God wrote it, and God is infallible (using the floweriest of words of course, to mask his awful circular argument).

Opponent: well this evidence i have (*presents evidence*) says that the bible is wrong, and thus fallible, so your argument is faulty.

Craig: (beautiful eloquent speech) even if the bible was proven wrong, i would still believe because i have personally witnessed Christ.

Opponent: ...**** this...

Craig: I WIN!

basically, any intelligent person (who is not biased towards Craig's point of view) can easily see through his smoke and mirror show. Yes, Craig will win debates more often than not because he is a fantastic debater, not because his argument is logically sound.

WHAT?? Have even watched a Craig debate? He almost never brings up the bible. Seriously, if you want to hate on him at least be honest about it.

If you think Craig is wrong about something why don't you demonstrate it. You really haven't got the slightest clue about what he really is and how capable he is. For those who have some idea you look more silly the more you post on this.

Prove it.

I was almost starting to respect you. Absurdities like this make me wonder why. He will use an opponent's public position as representative of the opponent, which is perfectly valid, and never complains when his opponent does the same. It's a live debate, if the opponent is being misrepresented or has changed his mind, he is free to correct Craig's statements. I've never seen this happen.

No, he offers premises which he often states are "if" premises and often says those premises are themselves open to debate. He never, that I can recall, claims a premise is certain unless it is obvious and generally agreed to be so. What happens in the debates is the opponents completely ignore Craig's arguments - they almost never attack the premises and instead go off on some irrelevant tangent that has nothing to do with the debate topics. This is one of the most frustrating things about Craig's debates - I want the opponents to press what Craig says, to reveal any weaknesses or good counter arguments. I'm beginning to think there are none because the debates never produce any.

There was a debate with a younger guy, totally bald if I remember. From memory I think that he actually did a really good job of pushing Craig and staying on topic. It has been a while since I watched it, I will try to find it.

I don't recall that but would be interested.

For the record I think Tabash asked a couple of difficult questions that Craig didn't answer but I'm not sure what the topic was supposed to be so it may have been off the debate topic. But Tabash himself, as I recall, never engaged Craig on any of Craig's positions.

I don't know that I have seen that one. I will have to look it up. What was the topic?

[QUOTE=NotReady;14926221]Prove it.[quote]

One of these days we'll have to deconstruct a Craig debate. Why don't you pick a debate, start a thread, and we'll do that. Just please don't pick one of the ones where he goes into formal probability arguments and formal logic formulas since I won't be able really analysis the structure of those those arguments.

Whew, dodged that bullet!

You've probably seen a lot more Craig debates then I have (I've only seen 4 or 5) but I've seen him do this a few times. Maybe its exceptional. I also held out the possibility that its an accepted debate tactic - I'm not familiar with the rules and strategies of formal debate so am open to that being acceptable practice however this has several effects for me:

1) it forces his opponent to defend arguments that he has made in prior debates which takes away from his arguments in the current debate

2) it puts words in the mouth of the opponent that he now has to waste time defending

3) it is annoying to watch people re-debate prior debates (which didn't even involve the same people.

4) it makes the opponent have to defend positions which potentially he/she may not even hold anymore

5) it can turn the audience on the opponent for comments that he hasn't even made in the current debate, potentially affecting who "won" the debate

Now again, I am not terribly familiar with the "sport" of debate, so all of this may be fairly pedestrian and I'm making much ado about nothing. It just seems like dirty pool to me. And is a part of what I mean by smoke and mirrors.

Maybe so (I can't remember to be honest) however he goes on to draw some strong conclusions from those ifs, and those ifs may be completely unfounded (the resurrection debate comes to mind here). This is another part of what I mean by smoke and mirrors.

I agree with this, at least for the debates I've seen. I do believe Craig does a better job for the most part of sticking to the topic and I've found his opponents inexplicably often don't deal directly with Craig's arguments, which is a shame since I there is no reason to dodge his arguments.

I must say, NR, that I do quite enjoy listening to Craig. I think he does as good as job as anyone defending these religious positions and is far better than most.

Choose a debate, start a thread, and let's let RGT pick apart a debate. I think that could be fun!

It was linked on page 2 of this thread by Luvly. Worth watching though Luv completely misrepresented Craig. I don't know what the topic was supposed to be, which lessens the value of watching it - probably something like "Which is more likely to be true, secular humanism or Christianity?"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...7745595&hl=en#

This was the one that I was thinking about. Like I said, it has been a while since I have watched it. But from what I remember it was good.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcfwq...eature=related