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

Dawkins loses debate against Rowan Williams

#31Dathrowed1Posted 2/5/2013 7:31:08 AM
Ownmerji posted...
From: BashyMcFetus | #023
Ownmerji posted...
Debates are not decided by votes or polls. They're decided by the arguments made and by how well they were laid out. We don't decide truth by a vote.

Debates certainly are decided by vote. Debating is about proving that you can argue your position better than your opponent can argue theirs. It's not about deciding or deducing the truth.


Debates are about the soundness of the arguments used to back up the debater's claims. Anything less than that and I can just fill the audience with my friends or people I've bribed and win every debate. It's absurd.


They do control for things like that and normally poll the audience before the debate begins.
---
sig
#32AdmiralBisonPosted 2/6/2013 1:48:15 AM
Ownmerji posted...
From: AdmiralBison | #016
Ownmerji posted...
Debates are not decided by votes or polls. They're decided by the arguments made and by how well they were laid out. We don't decide truth by a vote.


Strange that.

A majority of Americans believe that people where created in their present form by Jesusgod and not by Evolution.

Also a majority of the world voted the planets and the stars revolved around Earth.

What the facts and evidence have to say is not a democratic vote though.


I literally don't understand what you're trying to say. Have you been drinking tonight?



Facts and evidence are not based on a vote and is not democratic also to a further extent neither is truth.
We could all decide and vote the Earth is flat if there was a great arguement laid out for it, but it will not change the truth that the Earth is not flat.

There have been many debates where WLC and prominent Theists both famous and infamous have won debates over Atheists, there are only so many ways you can argue for the validity of theistic Religions but in the real world the facts are very much growing against the relevance of Religion.
---
If delusions and Illusions are an en-escapable part of our entire lives, why not just pick a positive one?
#33C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 6:58:32 AM
^last sentence is not true.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#34DrAlbertBanduraPosted 2/6/2013 7:04:55 AM
No? The world is shrinking. In particular, the intolerance perpetuated by religion is becoming less and less relevant. People are shifting toward more secular views. The only way in which it could maintain its relevance is for all its negativity.
---
Two fish are in a tank. One turns to the other and says, "You man the guns. I'll drive."
http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/9504/bandura.jpg
#35C_Mat(Topic Creator)Posted 2/6/2013 9:21:16 AM
I'm sorry if you guys think there are any more reasons to disbelieve in Christianity than there were 100 years ago. But that's just not true. In fact, modern scholarship finds the historicity of the Gospels (and the resurrection of Jesus) more compelling today than they did half a century ago.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#36DarkContractorPosted 2/6/2013 10:17:54 AM
ah, the histrocity argument.

modern scholarship finds a man named Jesus who thought he was the son of God and crucified possible.

but lets hear your case for the resurrection and the miracles and stuff. You have the burden of proof, dont ive us some appeal to authority in that "some smart guys somewhere think historically it happened."
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
#37DagorhaPosted 2/6/2013 10:31:10 AM
C_Mat posted...
I'm sorry if you guys think there are any more reasons to disbelieve in Christianity than there were 100 years ago. But that's just not true. In fact, modern scholarship finds the historicity of the Gospels (and the resurrection of Jesus) more compelling today than they did half a century ago.


your joking right? Most scholars don't believe that at all.
---
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
#38TheRealJiraiyaPosted 2/6/2013 10:33:12 AM
LunarAmbience posted...
http://i.imgur.com/eiIvzen.jpg

Bam.


Wait, really? Challenge accepted, if youre really down, but I expect 100 for every step forward I post.
---
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -Plato
http://tinyurl.com/JoinThisIRunIt
#39DagorhaPosted 2/6/2013 10:49:40 AM
TheRealJiraiya posted...
LunarAmbience posted...
http://i.imgur.com/eiIvzen.jpg

Bam.


Wait, really? Challenge accepted, if youre really down, but I expect 100 for every step forward I post.


will you be balancing for the scope of the damage?
---
You don't get a gold star for being less bloody stupid than another bloody stupid person when you are still demonstrably bloody stupid. -the final bahamut
#40JonWood007Posted 2/6/2013 12:58:22 PM
C_Mat posted...
I'm sorry if you guys think there are any more reasons to disbelieve in Christianity than there were 100 years ago. But that's just not true. In fact, modern scholarship finds the historicity of the Gospels (and the resurrection of Jesus) more compelling today than they did half a century ago.


LOLOLOLOLOL. No.

Modern scholarship is not all on the same page. Once again, I will refer you to Bart Ehrman, for instance. More mainstream scholars are very liberal Christians (ie, the ones who don't believe in everything and some times come off as general theists more than Christians). Bart Ehrman was a Christian, but his study of the subject made him deconvert. He refers himself as an agnostic now.
---
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