This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Dawkins loses debate against Rowan Williams

#1C_MatPosted 2/3/2013 4:52:30 PM
The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, defeated prominent atheist professor, Richard Dawkins, in a debate at the University of Cambridge in England on Thursday night, as a vote taken at the conclusion of the debate ruled that religion does have a place in the 21st century.

The debate motion that "religion has no place in the 21st Century" was well-defeated at the event held in front of an audience of about 800 people, mostly students, at the Cambridge Union Society's chambers, according to the U.K.'s Independent newspaper.

Dawkins lost the debate by 324 votes to 136, as he failed to convince the house that religion has no place.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-loses-debate-against-former-anglican-head-rowan-williams-at-cambridge-university-full-video-89364/#HvkfBIx5O4fLbSb5.99

Yes, I'm getting the news from a Christian site, but the voters were mostly Cambridge University students, not necessarily Christians.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#2JonWood007Posted 2/3/2013 5:00:28 PM
Looks like he was arguing a bad topic (religion having no use).....I notice atheists get eaten alive when making sweeping general statements like this. Major reason I never cared for hitchens...he always pushed that point and got torn apart.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#3C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/3/2013 5:28:48 PM
Bad topic? Pefectly legitimate topic, Dawkins is just on the wrong side.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#4JonWood007Posted 2/3/2013 6:23:48 PM
What I'm saying is that it's a difficult topic for atheists to argue. However, I just watched the 45 minutes or so of it and I have to agree with the atheists. Rowan seemed to offer a rather weak argument. Community? A sense of being part of something greater than yourself? You might as well join the army. I have to side with Dawkins an the other atheists with this one. Is religion always the big bad boogeyman? No, I think it can have redeeming features, but I think the atheists did a great job in this debate.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#5kirsybuuPosted 2/3/2013 6:24:35 PM
One guy failing to convince 324 people of something does not mean that the something is false.
---
"sabe que no puede resistir mis encantos sensuales." ~ Poolshark128
#6JonWood007Posted 2/3/2013 6:28:31 PM
^^Yeah, especially when you're talking about a room full of believers.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#7Faust_8Posted 2/3/2013 6:32:07 PM
Proving religion has no place will always be a lot harder than proving a religion has silly, unjustified beliefs.

Even something that is false can be useful. The Boy Who Cried Wolf is false but it still serves a purpose.

So yeah, Dawkins was reaching for a difficult, obscure, rather unimportant point and didn't make it. Whoopity doo, it's not like Dawkins and the rest are "leaders of atheism."
---
You are the universe
Expressing itself as a human, for a little while
#8JonWood007Posted 2/3/2013 6:38:30 PM
Pretty much, although I'd say Dawkins and the other guys on his side gave a pretty strong case. And I'd say that Rowan didn't. Dawkins and his buddies raised a lot of claims about religion being harmful that I don't think that were adequately countered.

Still, arguing religion has no purpose is kind of a stretch. it does provide a purpose for some, although i will agree with Dawkins that it is aged, and its views border on irrelevancy. I like how Dawkins at one point said, ok, let's step back, take a bigger look at the picture, IS THIS STUFF TRUE?! I think if you demonstrate that religion is based on falsehoods that it doesn't have many positive purposes. No purpose is a hard pill to swallow, but still, I have to say I liked his arguments, and if you havent actually watched some of the debate, I suggest you do and come to your own conclusions.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 4 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HD | W7 | 1366x768
#9LunarAmbiencePosted 2/3/2013 8:02:53 PM
http://i.imgur.com/eiIvzen.jpg

Bam.
---
The above is both true and false.
#10C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/3/2013 8:09:54 PM
^most theists would wholeheartedly agree with that statement, I don't know what you think it proves.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk