Slashdot Mirror
Theologian Attempts Censorship After Losing Public Debate
RockDoctor writes "Theologian John Haught publicly debated prominent evolutionary scientist and atheist Jerry Coyne at the University of Kentucky back in October. Before the debate, both parties agreed to the debate being video-taped. Coyne is of the opinion that he convincingly won the debate over Haught. But we'll never know, because Haught, with the assistance of staff at the University of Kentucky, who sponsored the debate, is banning publication of the video of the event. They are even refusing to release the half of the debate containing Coyne's comments and questions."
I propose cruxifiction.
'Nuff said.
Facts are facts, and debating them with someone whose world-view is predicated on the existence of an imaginary friend offers no opportunity to increase our knowledge.
... wait a second, let me read the wikipedia article on this guy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Haught#cite_note-Haught-Coyne-7
- Is an evolutionary creationist
- Testified against ID in a court case
What exactly were these guys debating about?
p.s. anyone have a real source on this article?
From the update to TFA:
So not only is the guy refusing to release the record, but he's now threatening legal action because people are calling him names and being mean.
When your in a hole, rule #1 - stop digging.
They probably lost the tape when a student stole it to sell for meth.
I would like to see this debate. It should not be censored. Even if dude lost the debate, that doesn't mean much except he should analyze his theology. Let us analyze the outcome and create better theories. I think we should have more public talks and awareness of this. People with bad theology are coming to bad conclusions that is bad for the souls of men.
So far, I haven't found a better theory than the "Long Day Theory" which lets evolution fit perfect with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Here is my old take on it. God himself actually approved of this article and my book. I prayed over the publishing of this book if what I said was theologically sound,"I pray everything is cool" and instantly my coauthor IMs me,"Everything is cool." That was the second time I know God interacted in my life in a way he wanted me to know. You can get a copy of my book for free or you can read my articles online for free.
God spoke to me
The point of public debate is to sway those (perhaps few) in the audience who are undecided on the matter being debated; to inform in a dramatic manner; and to raise the profile of an issue that the debaters and venue consider important.
Its pretty hard to win a debate where the creationist cites a very old book written by countless of authors at a time when they thought the earth was flat, sickness was evil spirits and a invisible dude run around killing people because they dont worship him properly. The whole story is much more insane than anything David Lynch could ever dream up in a LSD induced trip.
On the other side you have the atheist who cites facts, proof and logic.
How the heck could a creationist win except by hypnosis of the audience or successful brainwash?
HTTP/1.1 400
sheesh. The classic William Lane Craig vs Antony Flew debate settled this a long time ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NixhL0CoH2s
And God will get me for that.
The Comfy Chair!
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
(Rimshot)
There is evidence to support the idea that Paul invented the idea that 100% of all Humans go to Hell with the exception of those saved by Jesus as a way of breaking the original covenant with Abraham the Jews had. The idea is that Adam brought Sin into the world, and at that point all Humans were damned to Hell. Jews of Paul's time were rejecting Christianity, while the surrounding "Pagans" were adopting it. The Jews were a disliked class, so this little poison pill was a way of condemning the Jews.
This also explains why there are Christian Creationists. For Christianity to be true, and the Jesus Crucifixion to have had any purpose, that particular story is the most important story after the story of Jesus. Without Creationism, Christianity collapses entirely because Yahweh has no original sin with Which to condemn us all to Hell from the start.
Paul provided Christianity with the rope to hang itself. Because he created the clause in the Bible that requires the initial original sin of Adam to take place for any of this to mean anything. The Original sin of Adam is the PRIMARY reason for the Crucifixion in Jesus, ordinary Human failings are SECONDARY.
I understand what Paul was trying to do, he was looking for a way to make the laws of the Torah invalid for salvation. He wanted to be able to go to the Jews of his time, and say "Yahweh doesn't care if you follow the laws of Moses any longer. You were bad followers so he no longer wants you because you have the audacity to reject the sacrifice of the savior. So, see you in Hell."
We know the world is not 6000 years old, we know that the Genesis myths were allegory because those desert nomads didn't know how the world began, Paul hedged the entire religion on the foundation of that myth.
So in conclusion, Christianity is the cult of Paul. This only applies to Christianity. But it is the critical fault in Christianity that disproves it. Thats why creationists cling tp the creation myth more than any other myth in the Bible. It's the corner stone that collapses the whole religion.
They're using this 'ban' for people to become curious and demand to see the video. And both he and Coyne will have lots of money.
O'Rielly gets slammed every time he debates an atheist or evolutionist and that show still airs. I guess it's a fetish...or just that this Haught guy had his face mushed into the dirt.
"That's right...I said it."
Wow, you sound like the open minded leading scientists who rejected the big bang theory back in the day because it was developed by a priest and "smelled of creationism".
As demonstrated by the priest referred to above, the religious may also use facts, proof and logic. They just don't do so on religious matters, there they have articles of faith. Of course some atheists seem to have articles of faith themselves, their faith is merely of the opposite polarity. When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
Sounds like he succeeded. Didn't publish a video is not merely an 'attempt'. Now then... you can call it an 'attempt' as soon as we see the content available despite their efforts.
Actually it sounds like the University itself is responsible for the censorship... specifically Mr. Rabel, and I would say based on the article... it sounds like the uni is a biased venue that would choose to publish or not publish based on who won. Shame shame.
The participant decided he didn't want it published after the fact, but since he had already granted his permission, the ball rests totally in the uni's court....
petition for release: couldn't hurt to sign
http://www.change.org/petitions/gaines-center-for-the-arts-john-haught-and-robert-rabel-release-the-october-12th-debate-video-featuring-jerry-coyne-and-john-haught#
You are pretty uninformed regarding Christianity. Christianity has a wide range of opinions and only a very small minority are of the earth is 6,000 years old persuasion. Many are quite comfortable with the idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old. As a matter of fact a priest from one of these larger groups introduced the big bang theory to the world of science. They also quite comfortable that the bible often speaks in metaphors that are not to be taken literally, that an all knowing God can only communicate to man using concepts that man is capable of understanding.
Who are these guys? Coyne describes Haught as Americas leading theologian on the subject - but I've never heard of him, nor Coyne himself up to this point.
http://www.change.org/petitions/gaines-center-for-the-arts-john-haught-and-robert-rabel-release-the-october-12th-debate-video-featuring-jerry-coyne-and-john-haught#
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
yeah, it is rampant on YouTube, yet they go to the atheist videos and preach all their sh1t because the videos aren't enough.
"That's right...I said it."
Basically, they have nothing. And whenever somebody demonstrates that, they lie, cheat and manipulate. Quite obvious, really. What is beyond me is that so many people cannot see what is in plain sight.
As to theo"logy", yes they are using logic and the logic sometimes is even sound. But the base assumptions needed are so messed up that common sense does not make any appearance here. In any pragmatic sense this does not qualify as "logic" at all. And formal logic teaches us that with you start with a false statement, you can derive everything and anything, i.e. the whole theory build on it is just a fantasy construct. ("False => something" is always a true statement.)
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
That somehow one party legitimately won a debate of factual, unemotive series of arguments, over his opponent, is a pretty big assumption here. There's many other reasons why the poor fool may have decided to censor it - blatant ad hominem attacks that would get the guy in trouble with friends / family / job being the first that comes to my mind. (And no, you don't have to be 'guilty' for such attacks to work)
Seriously, when was the last time you watched a debate, and it was a civil exchange of factual, unemotive, sincere argumentation? Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework (and rather seems to enjoy it, in fact). And I'd expect most people in debates with a known opponent would too, since the point of a debate is usually 'to *win' the debate, and not to obtain a mutually improved selection of arguments, (where no winner exists as such).
In fact, I'd say the fact that the slashdot response to this has been so stereotypical -- a witchhunt, and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser --, rather justifies his decision, even at the risk of a Streisand Effect (which his opponent was very quick to pursue).
When true scientists are asked about God the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence one way or the other.
When true scientists are asked about invisible unicorns the answer tends to be: I don't know, there is no evidence of them so most likely they don't exist. And if someone were to claim they exist they better have some proof to back those claims up.
Well here is the evidence of unicorns: http://news.discovery.com/videos/animals-mythical-unicorn-found-in-deer-form.html. ;-)
If he'd just let this public debate be viewed by the public, we wouldn't have to assume anything. We could make our own conclusions. If he's going to great lengths to hide it, we're going to assume the worst. It's a pretty big leap of logic to assume that everything was all unicorns and flowerbeds when he's flipping out about it like he is.
This is a good job for wikileaks
Seems the university, being a public institution could have at least a transcript of the debate subject to a FReedom of Information Act Request.
Curious... does The Gaines Center for the Humanities get public funding? Perhaps applying pressure to public funding sources to remove funding might be appropriate.
As for the comment "In fact, I'd say the fact that the slashdot response to this has been so stereotypical -- a witchhunt, and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser --, rather justifies his decision, even at the risk of a Streisand Effect (which his opponent was very quick to pursue)."
It is hard to come to any conclusion when the tape of the actual debate has been censored. If the tape is published, then we can see for ourselves what happened and make a more educated guess..
You know that the "logy" in theology has very little to do with logic. It's derived from the word "logos" than means word, so its "word of god", or "words about gods" or something like that, it's got nothing to do with logic.
RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates; the man does his homework
If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me) or using the respect of their office then it isn't ad hominem to attack their person -- they opened the door by using themselves as their argument. Unfortunately there aren't very many compelling arguments for religion that don't boil down to 'trust me' or 'god spoke to me', but it isn't Dawkin at fault.
C'mon everyone, he lost! He absolutely has the right to take his ball, run home and sit in his room pretending not to cry. Show the guy a little consideration, hmm?
I'm not sure I see the distinction you're making. Heresy and splinter sects have always existed in the history of christianity, I don't deny that. But the protestants deserve credit for making it acceptable to disagree with catholic dogma. They literally fought and died in huge numbers over many years throughout Europe to legitimize their movement. That's not the same as people complaining about the corruption of their local priests etc.
One might add that the catholics are pretty squarely in the camp that the bible is not to be taken literally. It was one of their priests that introduced the scientific world to the theory that the universe started with a bang billions of years ago.
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me. (Psalm 51)
The LORD looks down from heaven on all mankind to see if there are any who understand, any who seek God. All have turned away, all have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one. (Psalm 14)
If none do good and heaven is to remain perfect, clearly humanity who has 'together become corrupt' could not enter without some kind of purification. It is clear in the Old Testament that it is the messiah who would provide this:
But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed. We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all. (Isaiah 53:5,6)
In fact there's a bit of an obsession out in Atheist-land at beating one guy: William Lane Craig, who is considered technically by many to be the top Christian debater... and arguably has never "lost" (sorry I really have to put that last word in quotes), as the linked Atheist site describes, despite going up against some serious popular intellectual heavyweights such as Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris. Famously, Dawkins recently backed out of a debate with him.
It's worth noting here, for anyone interested, this blog which does a pretty nice job of reviewing and rating many of these debates from an Agnostic perspective.
These debates generally are not specifically on evolution, but virtually all of them include it to greater and lesser degrees.
Coyne's site states that the subject was: “Are science and religion compatible?” Coyne, I'm guessing, would say they aren't. According to the quotation at the Wikipedia page for Haught, he would agree with Coyne: "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other." What little I understand about evolutionary creationism seems to imply a level to reality above that of the universe, in which god acts, and which, because it cannot be perceived, cannot be either proved or disproved. So what's to argue about? Haught claims that "materialism" dwells in the heart of science educators, which he views as a religion. So I guess this is an argument about one man's notions that we worship "materialism," and that religion should be given equal time, even though he doesn't dispute the findings of modern science. So the argument isn't about the structure of the universe or the findings of modern science, but giving equal time to "religion" because science is a worship of "materialism"? Pretty thin gruel for a debate, since "materialism" exists as a religion only in the mind of Haught. Funny, the science magazines I read have no mention of this "materialism" he speaks of.
As to religion, for me, part of human freedom is getting to believe what you want. It's your mind, use it as you see fit, so long as you don't harm anyone else. Besides, I know an atheist who rejects climate change and a Catholic who accepts it. I know a former protestant minister, very religious, who accepts the findings of geology about the age of the Earth. I know a non-religious person who believes in alien visitations. This is subjective, but I find no correlation between rational thinking and personal belief systems. It seems to be based on the individual, not the religion.
Lutheran-Raised Anonymous Coward is right: the Catholic Church was the one who took liberties with the Bible to come up with their own doctrine. The Protestants fought to free themselves of the accumulated Catholic dogma and go back to the biblical roots of Christianity.
In a way, you could credit Protestants for emphasizing personal judgment, and Catholics for de-emphasizing the Bible.
Gravitation is a theory, not a fact.
Disclaimer: I am a theologian. Or, at least, I have a Ph.D. in New Testament and was an ordained minister and pastor in the Southern Baptist Convention (although I no longer affiliate with them.) I don't know John Haught, nor have I read any of his books that I can recall, because at this point the whole evolution debate bores me.
I would suggest two alternative possibilities to the "theologian lost and was scared" rationale.
The first may simply be that he said something that, upon reflection, he wished he hadn't, thought was poorly phrased, or otherwise didn't want getting out there. Theologians, particularly Catholic theologians, are in an odd position. Their personal and private opinion may not always line up with the official position of the church. For a Catholic theologian, and particularly an American Catholic theologian, this is quite common when looking at social issues -- divorce and remarriage, women in ministry, etc. However, if they explicitly, publicly state that they don't agree with the teaching of the church, they can sometimes lose their jobs and/or the ability to publish with Catholic publishers and/or permission to publish (if they're a priest or other clergy.) I'm just speculating here, but it may well be the cause that John Haught said something under pressure that didn't accord with the teaching of the Catholic Church, and now he doesn't want it getting outthere.
Alternatively... reading this guy's blog, frankly he strikes me as more than a little childish (like most militant atheists -- the more militant, the more childish.) As a publishing theologian, your stock in trade is your reputation for sustained, reasoned discourse on theological topics. You don't advance that reputation by slapping at gnats. This is, incidentally, why things like the Davinci Code tend to get ignored -- not because they're credible, but precisely because they're too absured to bother with.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates
Each time I see one of these debates he seems to have extraordinary amounts of patience with his opponents. What are you referring to, really? Or do mean something like calling someone deluded when they claim that god spoke to them? That seems fair - even if you share their belief you'd have to acknowledge that this can only be viewed as a delusion by someone who doesn't.
Experience tells me that hearing only one person's side of a story almost never gives a complete picture. I'd partially suspend judgment until hearing the other guy's side of the story and/or seeing the content of the video.
Apologies if this has already been said, but Rabel's 'Gaines Center for the Humanities' gets funding from the National Endowment for the Humanities. That's who to complain to, especially if you think Rabel's threat of legal action is way out of line.
It's logically consistent, even if it's obviously self-serving. But it's wrong to view it from the modern viewpoint where both protestants and catholics are equally legitimate. In the historical context, the protestants were wrong until they eventually became right by force of arms.
So not only is the guy refusing to release the record, but he's now threatening legal action because people are calling him names and being mean
Jehova must be having an off day. Can you imagine Moses crying to the Pharaoh "Let my people free .... or I'll get my lawyer to bring an action"? Or Jesus saying "You have turned the holy temple into a den of thieves ... expect a writ soon.
where is Haught's trust in the Lord?
On a debate on which the outcome is going to be framed on logic, tautologies, and proof... there is no way that a faith based position can prevail.
If a faith could be proven, it is no longer a faith. It is a fact.
I am not sure why God places so much emphasis on faith... my theory is that if one is incapable of faith then one is incapable of existing at a higher level of being. In other words, if one can't accept reality despite the fact that the nature of said reality is unprovable in human logical constructs, then one is incapable of evolving (interesting choice of words) to the next level of being. Many seeds planted, not all sprout.
I can accept such a thing.
What I can't accept is that an all loving God - who supposedly loves us far more than a doting parent loves their child - would toss his kids in an oven (forever!) simply because they didn't blindly follow (his) word. Which incidentally is spread by humans, some of whom are massive assholes.
Oh yeah another thing: how is heaven supposed to be a great place if a loved one, say a sister or child, goes to hell? Are you supposed to enjoy yourself up there in the cloud while your kid roasts while simultaneously being raped with a pitch fork? Just asking.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Yes, the old fashioned inquisition methods are best used in these situations.
The dunk-tank always worked better than water-boarding. Regrettably the mortality rate was higher in the old days, but today we can ignore any DNR on record. We can keep them alive and televise (at least) their confession.
HAVEFUN
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Too bad they're not our personal army.
I'm confused. What exactly did they debate? Haught is a Catholic theologian and the Catholic Church is not one of the creationist religions. The late Pope John Paul even publicly endorsed evolution. So what exactly did they debate about?
Heresy! It's actually due to a guy who rides a giant chariot across the sky and lives on a mountain in Greece!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates
It's valid, if the person's character or other attributes are relevant to the debate.
My view is that attempting to suppress the debate is huge evidence in support of the argumetn that Haught legitimately lost the debate.
I don't see why anyone would be surprised at this.
It's what they do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Science in general is the systematic study of what can be deduced rationally from all available evidence about the reality we find ourselves in. But given evidence, we must make assumptions in order to interpret the evidence so that it has any meaning. For example, no one actually observed the universe 5 billion years ago, it merely appears that things existed that far back because there are good theories consistent with a large amount of evidence that explain the current world as the culmination of a few billion years of history.
When we find a fossil in a rock somewhere, our natural assumption is that it was always there, but there is no actual evidence that it existed before it was observed. I fondly recall Penn and Teller's chopping a man up illusion and the way that Teller was only present in the part of the apparatus being observed for the duration of the door being opened.
To stretch your mind a little, try to imagine a large 'matrix-like' self-generating world in a supercomputer which could produce the world around _you_ that _you_ experience, and bear in mind that you cannot verify that others' experience of what you think of as your reality is genuine: you have no memory past your early childhood, and so how do you eliminate the possibility that the universe you are in is very recent and that the past is, for the most part, an elaborate illusion?
Now, to practice scientific investigations in the present day, you have to buy into a worldview which contains a great number of fair, but ultimately untested and untestable assumptions about what happens in reality when you are not observing it, among other things. It is possible to think outside this worldview and if you take a mystical take on things, for example, you will choose to see the world outside of the scientific straitjacket. There is nothing wrong with this, so long as you are aware of your fundamental beliefs and accept that there are other ways of seeing things.
Caveat: this is not a statement of my belief, rather it is an attempt at a 'food for thought' exercise to stretch your understanding of your understanding of your reality. (That 'understanding' bit is no typo BTW.)
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
If you feel like helping, ask politely for the release: rrabel@uky.edu
http://dilbert.com/2010-12-13
You're a word bully, aren't you? Here's another stripe of aWTFism: I have no clue what God is, so it's impossible to judge whether any of my beliefs are congruent.
I guess you'll argue that I don't really believe if I'm not willing to manufacture a mental representation of the emperor's clothes, of what the "god" word entails. Cognitive psychology tells us that we're normally fast and loose about said manufacture. We're also pretty good at manufacturing an excess of objective certainty if we swing the other direction.
What do we call ourselves who are content to navigate the uncertainty of life, the universe, and everything without recourse to belief steroids?
And what about belief algebra? Does it lessen one's belief in God to also believe in alien abduction? What do you call someone with promiscuous belief targets where only one is labelled as a god?
Here's something else I can choose to believe in or not. On the question of understanding it, I have fewer options.
The Book of Revelation: Prophecy and Politics
I was always partial to the views of Wittgenstein on metaphor. Do you have any feeling of ethereal awesomeness in search of a good word? Excellent, you're one of us! Or if you won't say so, it turns into "are you going to play nice with our little in-group ritual, or stand out there in the cold?" And if that doesn't work "Not even at risk of burning for all eternity?"
If God functions merely as a shibboleth for an in-group ritual, I guess you could say I'm functionally atheist. If I wasn't going to tell the truth in the first place, putting a bible under my hand isn't going to change my story. Lying as lifestyle is often associated with people with an exaggerated sense of personal autonomy. I think often the real question behind god is whether you're willing to concede anything bigger than yourself. I view myself as a pattern in an information space where boundaries are far less black and white. Instead of using the word "god" as a pipe brush for linguistically unattached sentiments pertaining to human collectivity, I have other modes of expression available, after digesting some equations explaining "you can't get there from here" concerning many woolly sentiments (courtesy Cantor, Turing, Godel, Kolmogorov/Chaitin).
So perhaps atheist means "exactly the same mental things that everyone else experiences attached to different words". I suspect J. L. Austin would be fine with viewing "I am atheist" or "I am agnostic" as a performative utterance rather than expressing a truth value. By that token, your harsh declamation is justified, with one small correction: Unless you proclaim, you're atheist; a theist being anyone in performative garb.
Personally, I'm not rushing to engage in any of the available performatives in this sphere. Here's one that I will accept: I'm aperformative. (Don't tell the girls.) I have no tattoos, either.
On Dawkins: I've just finished reading chapter 4 of his God Delusion and struggle to understand how a highly rated scientist in his own area can be so naive about concepts of God and about what religious people may believe and how their religious worldview is structured. In short, it's an utterly unconvincing rant and I struggle to see how people can rationally see it as anything else.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
On the subject of logic, you may want to look at some more recent work by e.g. Jeff Paris on deriving information from inconsistent knowledge: much has been done to get outside the straitjacket of classical logic, and you can find perfectly sensible ways of reasoning which don't obey the laws of classical logic.
-- The Grand Teddy Bear has Spoken: "Windows 8 Source Code Available NOW! more disgusting than your pr..."
Richard Dawkins, for instance, who is by now a champion of atheism, and has absolutely no need to do so, *still* resorts almost continuously to ad hominem attacks in his debates
[citation needed]
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
You are welcome to your view, but "unconvincing in chapter 4" doesn't equate to "ad hominem attacks in debates", surely?
This is a job for Wkilieaks. It'll happen.
I don't know whether there is a god or not, nor do I particularly care.
So, you don't believe there is a God. Atheist. Got it.
On the other hand, an atheist believes that there is no god - again, I don't know whether there is a god or not, I don't particularly care either way, so I'm not an atheist.
No. The concept that atheists actively believe in the existence of a non-God is a lie made up by the church to discredit atheists. I don't believe there is a God. That doesn't mean that I do believe there isn't a God. But, because I don't believe in God, I'm an atheist. You don't believe in God. You are an atheist. You have some particular aversion to that descriptor, so you claim another.
FYI, the Wikipedia definition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic#Types_of_agnosticism) seems to agree with GP. It is also consistent with what I know from other discussions.
Personally, I find it useful to have a distinction between people who strongly believe in the non-existence of God (I think those exist, not only as a lie by the church) and those who view that question as somehow undecided. Having agnostics as a third category besides believers and atheists provides that distinction.
BTW, I consider myself a pragmatic agnostic as in the Wikipedia definition, but feel free to call me an atheist if it makes you happy. I don't particularly care ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
stereotypical -- a witchhunt, and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser --, rather justifies his decision, even at the risk of a Streisand Effect (which his opponent was very quick to pursue).
I'm not making any statements either way on he rest of your post, so don't take what I write next as a condemnation of the rest of your post:
The guy IS a religious nut. He believes in an imaginary man in the sky that watches everything he does. That is pretty much the definition of a nut. It's not a "quick to label" thing - it's simply a statement of fact.
Digging up would be stupid - what if you find a lake, or worse, lava? (go ahead, tell me I don't get the Digg joke)
I actually think Dawkins is setting back the whole atheist movement with his belligerent attitude and single minded views. If I wasn't already an atheist, I'm not sure how the words of a scientific zealot would sway me away from the words of a religious zealot.
What would God have to fear from a true accounting of the night's events?
It doesn't sound like this so-called man of God has much faith in his own opinions, if he's such a coward that he can't bear seeing them challenged.
What a loser.
One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
...on any subject, plant third-party recorders in the audience to capture it all.
Also, stream it live.
Technology should be used to defeat censorship. Keep all options in mind. You may capture anything from superstitionist madmen to cops beating OWS demonstrators. GET IT ON RECORD and DISPERSE IT beyond censorship.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I dispute this is the case. In no event of which I'm aware did Dawkins dispute a point by way of insulting his interlocutor. Go ahead and find a few examples and I'll consider relenting. In short, "Citation needed."
The long and the short of it is why should anyone trust this person as a moderator.
Jerry Coyne and John Haught agreed to debate on the basis of a set of rules.
Only the height of dishonesty would enable John Haught to claim that when he agreed to the debate being recorded he was not agreeing to the record being made public - a sophistry that would not be recognized even in contract law where sophistry is expected. The "Meeting of the Minds" was clear, that John Haught entered into it with no intent of being held to it equally clear.
John Haught, merely by attempting this, establishes himself as dishonest.
But that Dr. Rabel, acting as a supposedly neutral moderator, vacated the pre-existing agreement arbitrarily based on this kind of weak argument is the real dishonesty - Jerry Coyne entered into an agreement based on a degree of trust that the agreement would be enforced regardless of the outcome. He spent time preparing for the debate, and Dr. Rabel threw out the agreed upon conditions based on a line of argument that would get any 5 year old spanked.
Dishonesty and prevarication in no way means John Haught is not someone to debate - Jerry Coyne is a big boy and can look out for himself, so long as the rules are enforced.
As a moderator however, Dr. Rabel should be blacklisted. He cannot be trusted to enforce the rules impartially, or indeed at all.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
and the video will now be posted, according to the blog at least.
either way i still find it despicable. debate, win, lose, but for godless sake be a good sport.
any credibility or authority this theologian had was tarnished when he imposed his censorship, and smashed the minute he threatened a lawsuit.
Good people go to bed earlier.
There are large numbers of Christians who are well aware of the inconsistencies within the Biblical texts. Christianity (and other faiths) has always been more than a text.
I suspect the whole thing is a metaphor. All that about an afterlife and a kingdom of heaven are literary devices to explain the fundamental idea:
Be Excellent to Each Other
Except the money changers. Beat the hell out of those guys.
So, do I qualify as a Christian?
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Read an interesting article that suggests that arguing is essentially an effort to raise your tribe status at the expense of someone else. The impetus is emotional, not logical, and there's no advantage to conceding defeat. In other words, there's really no point in arguing or debating. Some set of the people already agree with you, some set disagree with you, and some set will just side with whomever they think is "stronger" as demonstrated by chest-thumping, I suppose. Nothing of intellectual value transpires.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
Atheism is not a religion. They can act just as nuts as anybody else can.
A religion by definition requires belief in something supernatural; gods, powers, unfounded forces of nature or "beyond" nature etc. Doesn't have to be a conscious being, you are right on that (Buddhism for example) but it still has a supernatural component which due to it being supernatural can't be proven.
Atheism is the BELIEF in nothing supernatural; some define it as only denying conscious supernatural beings; re-incarnation may be acceptable so may other supernatural forces. Atheism by either definition is a unproven belief just like all religions; however, because it is defined by being the NEGATION of the core definition of religion. It can't itself be a religion even if its believers limit its scope.
A belief that capitalism is the best system is a religion and the fanatics sure make it look similar to the other religions... Communists did a similar thing a while back and went to extremes; "purging sinners" just like a church. The adherents of either both religiously believe it will lead us as close to Utopia as humanly possible. They always defend it saying people don't believe strongly enough... sound familiar?? No need to try or consider something else because you KNOW the answer already.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
We'll learn ya good!
I see this as simply a notification that people shouldn't go there for higher learning.
Good observation, recrudescence. Right or wrong, Richard Dawkins is MEAN, in the sense of being a mean-spiritied pr*ck.. Aristotle: rhetoric is ethos (character of the speaker), pathos (emotive or phatic communication), and logos. Everybody here is solid on the logos of this debate. I would like to see it myself, to evaluate the ethos and pathos involved.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2008/12/santa-vs-god/
[quote]and very quick to label this guy as a religious nut with dangerous delusions and now a sore loser[/quote]
What's wrong with that? The headline does say [i]theologian[/i].
1 Earth is warming, 2 It's us, 3 it's royally bad, 4 we need to take action NOW
The videos have been released.
http://vimeo.com/31505142
Ok, it's not good that this guy is putting up another roadblock to scientific debate, BUT...
Even if the christian's just want to hold onto their church power and stuff, what if we convince (and that's all this whole thing is, let's be honest, even science can't explain a LOT of stuff) most people that science is the way to go... what next?
Many people NEED to believe in something, even if it's a sky wizard. Life is too hard and short for a lot of people to not delude themselves. We all delude ourselves in lots of ways anyway, you dear reader are no exception so let's not thumb our nose at Christians for having a different set of delusions than you or I.
Fine, you convince people. We "prove" that nothing comes at death. What else comes after that except a bleak, terrifying knowledge that nothing we do except potentially advancing our species is worth ANYTHING, and even that is a dubious claim.
Fine, geeks, rain on humanity's parade. We are left with nothing. Anarchy after that? Mass depression? Total nihilism across the world?
What do you propose to replace so many of these beliefs with?
-
The video has been released by the Gaines center.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
blatant ad hominem attacks that would get the guy in trouble with friends / family / job being the first that comes to my mind. (And no, you don't have to be 'guilty' for such attacks to work)
According to HAUGHT (that is, the theologian), Coyne himself resorted to ad hominems, and Haught did not feel the video to be worth releasing. You should really read both Coyne's post, and Haught's response.
If the opponent is basing their argument on their own self, like saying "god spoke to me" or "I know this is true" (ie trust me)
I would be very surprised if you could find someone stating that as their argument in a debate. I would be astonished if you could find more than one.
Each time I see one of these debates he seems to have extraordinary amounts of patience with his opponents. What are you referring to, really?
How about opening the book "The God Delusion" by launching into a tirade about how religion was the cause of all the world's evils (guess the 20th century didnt get THAT memo)? Or how he lambasts christians for being too small minded about the grandeur of the universe, on page 2 (despite many psalms--essentially poetry-- in the bible speaking to the wonder and size of the universe: "what is man that you should be mindful of him")?
Yea, thats really a patient, even mannered man. The guy is a militant athiest, and what you take to be patience is phenomenal arrogance and condescension.
Basically you're using "substance" as if it exists when you cannot tell it exists.
Begging the question: how do you know it exists?
I don't think it exists, but I'm not a catholic. I think they claim they know this by revelation. This was only an example to show that it is possible to make pretty strange claims without being incompatible with science. To be incompatible you would need to make testable predictions that turn out to be wrong and then still keep them.
Jan
I rather doubt that, as "inconsistent knowledge" does happen to not be knowledge, just data. But, yes, for purposes such as data-mining, you can derive more data from inconsistent data. But the result quality is at least uncertain and typically low.
In a business-setting, derived data of that quality can still be profitably used sometimes. When arguing about fundamentals, it is completely useless.
Or take fuzzy-logic. Very good for designing and implementing regulators, but cannot give you yes/no answers, only probabilities. It does not allow inconsistent input though.
Incidentally, logic is not a "straitjacket". It is a way (currently the only known one) to get at the truth. If you do not see that, then you have not understood logic. But many people do not understand it or ignore its properties, because the derived results are inconvenient. For example the creationists go that route. Many politicians do as well.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
What I hold in wonderment is the concept of fertilization and production of the next generation of what we call living things. How the DNA came to be and how it's secrets are passed from generation to generation. Moreover, how we humans have procreation urges.
Aside from that wonderment, and a few other thoughts, that is my extent in the belief in something. Is it God? Is it nature?
For me, I go no further but to say that Religion is a social gathering of individuals.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
That seems like moving the goal posts - I was interested in "ad hominem attacks in debates", I didn't get the impression he makes those, so the charge seems unfair.
I don't think he is the person who introduced arrogance and condescension into debates about religion either - that's been around for a long time. (On all sides to be sure.) He doesn't seem any more arrogant as someone arguing that "if you just let Jesus into your heart you will realize the truth" or some such. Grant you, the person making such a statement will typically not realize that it's an arrogant one.