Total Posts:95|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debat

UtherPenguin
Posts: 3,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
https://www.youtube.com...

Full title was meant to be "William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate" but couldn't fit the last letter into the title.
"Change your sig."
~YYW
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
I started to watch this debate a few weeks ago, but I quickly found out that I can't stand to listen to either of them speak. I just could not sit through that whole debate; there is something about their voices.
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dsjpk5
Posts: 3,002
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 7:31:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Full title was meant to be "William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate" but couldn't fit the last letter into the title.

Hitchens got OWNED!
If that was the only issue, then vote moderation could be avoided more often, since a vote in which the voter does explain sufficiently how at least one point a debater made swung their vote, would be considered sufficient. -Airmax
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 7:49:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 7:31:14 PM, dsjpk5 wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Full title was meant to be "William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate" but couldn't fit the last letter into the title.

Hitchens got OWNED!

LOL.Yeah, as long as rhetoric trumps logic, reason and truth.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 8:12:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Full title was meant to be "William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate" but couldn't fit the last letter into the title.

Hitchens is an idiot.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 8:14:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:12:04 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 8/21/2015 6:19:38 PM, UtherPenguin wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

Full title was meant to be "William Lane Craig/Christopher Hitchens debate" but couldn't fit the last letter into the title.

Hitchens is an idiot.

Such brave words. lol.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:00:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

So you prefer style of substance?
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:09:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:00:48 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

So you prefer style of substance?

Certainly not what I said.

Hitchens was so without either in this debate. I mean... he has a few one liners but he never really addresses William Lane Craigs arguments. I agree with Hitch pre debate and post... but not because of this debate. I think if this debate was to be judged without prior knowledge of the topic most anyone would say Craig won.

Craig provides content, links, and impacts. Hitch provides a little bit of content and some humor.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 9:41:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:01:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

So I am a fan of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss. I dont think the label of "irrational quartet" is reasonable. I think they are brilliant men. I am just saying that in this particular case, Craig won the debate.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 10:10:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 10:01:28 PM, kasmic wrote:
- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

So I am a fan of Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and Krauss. I dont think the label of "irrational quartet" is reasonable. I think they are brilliant men. I am just saying that in this particular case, Craig won the debate.

- Dawkins is brilliant when it comes to Evolutionary Biology, I think! (not my area of expertise). Harris is probably brilliant in his own domain, Neuroscience (I wouldn't know either way). & since Physics is my field, I hate the fact that Krauss uses it as a tool to promote his own views, especially since he abuses it ever so often! I am not sure what Hitchens is good at, but bottom line, none of them are experts in Philosophy. That's just how it is. & the fact that they attempt to give an impression of being real critical thinkers & whatnot is simply distasteful to me.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:05:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 9:41:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

I have found Harris to be the most effective at being able to side step the noise and drill down to the most important/fundamental problem/issue when dealing with various religious beliefs.

I think alot of people don't get this so you often see comments like well Harris didn't respond to this or that thus he loses.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:05:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:41:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

I have found Harris to be the most effective at being able to side step the noise and drill down to the most important/fundamental problem/issue when dealing with various religious beliefs.

I think alot of people don't get this so you often see comments like well Harris didn't respond to this or that thus he loses.

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:16:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:05:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:41:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

I have found Harris to be the most effective at being able to side step the noise and drill down to the most important/fundamental problem/issue when dealing with various religious beliefs.

I think alot of people don't get this so you often see comments like well Harris didn't respond to this or that thus he loses.

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.

I thoroughly enjoyed Harris' "letter to a Christian nation." I think it fair to say that its hard to address large groups that are religious because the "Christian Nation" is incredibly fragmented and dont agree on much. I dont think Harris is ignorant of religion its more he is addressing the religious as one group as opposed to the fragmented smaller groups it is.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:17:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:16:21 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:05:39 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 8/21/2015 9:41:54 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 8:54:02 PM, kasmic wrote:
So my thoughts on this debate are as follows.

William Lane Craig is clearly the stronger debater which is shown through his structure and analysis of the debate while debating. I dont find the arguments themselves to be convincing but they are well stated and clearly outlined as to the impact on the debate.

Chris Hitchens is a brilliant author and orator. That stated I do think in this debate his thoughts lacked structure in general. So even though I find myself agreeing with Hitch, I think that Craig was the better debater and presented a better case. Hitch hardly addresses Craig's arguments and when he does it is very lightly.

It just seems to me like Craig may have come into the debate taking it more seriously then Chris Hitchens. If I were voting on this debate I would have voted for William Craig.

- I agree, Hitchens is mostly an orator, & a decent one at that. But, he isn't a philosopher, not by al long shot. He, Dawkins, Harris & Krauss are in my book 'the irrational quartet'. They are so not good when it comes to any philosophy related arguments.

I have found Harris to be the most effective at being able to side step the noise and drill down to the most important/fundamental problem/issue when dealing with various religious beliefs.

I think alot of people don't get this so you often see comments like well Harris didn't respond to this or that thus he loses.

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.

I thoroughly enjoyed Harris' "letter to a Christian nation." I think it fair to say that its hard to address large groups that are religious because the "Christian Nation" is incredibly fragmented and dont agree on much. I dont think Harris is ignorant of religion its more he is addressing the religious as one group as opposed to the fragmented smaller groups it is.

For all I know he could be ignorant in regards to Islam. I would not know though as I could be labeled ignorant of Islam.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:21:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:16:21 PM, kasmic wrote:

I thoroughly enjoyed Harris' "letter to a Christian nation." I think it fair to say that its hard to address large groups that are religious because the "Christian Nation" is incredibly fragmented and dont agree on much. I dont think Harris is ignorant of religion its more he is addressing the religious as one group as opposed to the fragmented smaller groups it is.

- I am speaking of my own perspective, Islam that is. & I can say with absolute certainty that Harris knows about Islam as much as a 5 year old knows about Quantum Mechanics, which is NOTHING. The same can be said about Dawkins as well. Hence my statement.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:24:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:17:40 PM, kasmic wrote:

For all I know he could be ignorant in regards to Islam.

- Terribly ignorant, indeed.

I would not know though as I could be labeled ignorant of Islam.

- Maybe, we shall remedy that. ;)
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
kasmic
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:31:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:24:34 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:17:40 PM, kasmic wrote:

For all I know he could be ignorant in regards to Islam.

- Terribly ignorant, indeed.

I would not know though as I could be labeled ignorant of Islam.

- Maybe, we shall remedy that. ;)

We have talked briefly before, and I am interested. Its just hard to stay on top of everything. I will contact you again though when I have a few mins to really study out what you have already shared with me.
"Liberalism Defined" http://www.debate.org...
"The Social Contract" http://www.debate.org...
"Intro to IR An Open Discussion" http://www.debate.org...

Check out my website, the Sensible Soapbox http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
My latest article: http://www.sensiblesoapbox.com...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:37:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:31:22 PM, kasmic wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:24:34 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:17:40 PM, kasmic wrote:

For all I know he could be ignorant in regards to Islam.

- Terribly ignorant, indeed.

I would not know though as I could be labeled ignorant of Islam.

- Maybe, we shall remedy that. ;)

We have talked briefly before, and I am interested. Its just hard to stay on top of everything. I will contact you again though when I have a few mins to really study out what you have already shared with me.

- Sure. I am always welcoming to people who are interested in Islam.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:38:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM, Yassine wrote:

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.

At 8/21/2015 11:21:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
I can say with absolute certainty that Harris knows about Islam as much as a 5 year old knows about Quantum Mechanics, which is NOTHING. The same can be said about Dawkins as well. Hence my statement.

Your statements are disingenuous at best. Dawkins has painstakingly researched a great deal about religions over the decades, has written books on the subject for which no one has ever refuted the facts he presents. He has spoken in great detail and at length with some of the most knowledgeable and respected religious scholars from an array of faiths and cultures. He has had numerous debates that can be seen on the internet. He has traveled all over the world giving lectures and seminars. His overall understanding of religion far exceeds the vast majority of the followers of most religions and certainly far more than your measly pittance of following one religion.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 12:42:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:38:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM, Yassine wrote:

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.

At 8/21/2015 11:21:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
I can say with absolute certainty that Harris knows about Islam as much as a 5 year old knows about Quantum Mechanics, which is NOTHING. The same can be said about Dawkins as well. Hence my statement.

Your statements are disingenuous at best. Dawkins has painstakingly researched a great deal about religions over the decades, has written books on the subject for which no one has ever refuted the facts he presents. He has spoken in great detail and at length with some of the most knowledgeable and respected religious scholars from an array of faiths and cultures. He has had numerous debates that can be seen on the internet. He has traveled all over the world giving lectures and seminars. His overall understanding of religion far exceeds the vast majority of the followers of most religions and certainly far more than your measly pittance of following one religion.

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 12:42:33 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/22/2015 12:38:32 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 8/21/2015 11:11:34 PM, Yassine wrote:

- The primary issue I find with Harris (or Dawkins...) is their severe ignorance of Religion. Thus, their arguments are shallow at best, & often completely off-base.

At 8/21/2015 11:21:01 PM, Yassine wrote:
I can say with absolute certainty that Harris knows about Islam as much as a 5 year old knows about Quantum Mechanics, which is NOTHING. The same can be said about Dawkins as well. Hence my statement.

Your statements are disingenuous at best. Dawkins has painstakingly researched a great deal about religions over the decades, has written books on the subject for which no one has ever refuted the facts he presents. He has spoken in great detail and at length with some of the most knowledgeable and respected religious scholars from an array of faiths and cultures. He has had numerous debates that can be seen on the internet. He has traveled all over the world giving lectures and seminars. His overall understanding of religion far exceeds the vast majority of the followers of most religions and certainly far more than your measly pittance of following one religion.

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:02:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.

- Would you please leave me alone! If you reply again I'll ignore you. Bye.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 1:04:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:02:32 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.

- Would you please leave me alone! If you reply again I'll ignore you. Bye.

Funny, how you always say Bye when you can't defend your own words. Coward.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
tstor
Posts: 1,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 3:51:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
I have met plenty of atheists that have claimed to have read the Bible, but that does not mean they have any firm understanding of it. I will often find that they take verses out of context or even lack basic concepts of Biblical thought.
Reading =/= understanding
"The afternoon came down as imperceptibly as age comes to a happy man. A little gold entered into the sunlight. The bay became bluer and dimpled with shore-wind ripples. Those lonely fishermen who believe that the fish bite at high tide left their rocks, and their places were taken by others, who were convinced that the fish bite at low tide." (John Steinbeck; Tortilla Flat, 1935)
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 4:49:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:51:07 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
I have met plenty of atheists that have claimed to have read the Bible, but that does not mean they have any firm understanding of it. I will often find that they take verses out of context or even lack basic concepts of Biblical thought.
Reading =/= understanding

An assertion which is impossible to defend against. No matter how much understanding an atheist demonstrates you will always claim it is never enough or the understanding is flawed (the inane taking verses out of context mantra). Therefore your assertion is entirely worthless. The only criteria you have for understanding the Bible is if you believe it, ie. buy the snake oil. Any criticism is dismissed as lack of understanding. A circular argument.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 4:58:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 4:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:51:07 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
I have met plenty of atheists that have claimed to have read the Bible, but that does not mean they have any firm understanding of it. I will often find that they take verses out of context or even lack basic concepts of Biblical thought.
Reading =/= understanding

An assertion which is impossible to defend against. No matter how much understanding an atheist demonstrates you will always claim it is never enough or the understanding is flawed (the inane taking verses out of context mantra).

Untrue.

Therefore your assertion is entirely worthless. The only criteria you have for understanding the Bible is if you believe it, ie. buy the snake oil.

... and that's not true, either. One could understand very well what the Bible teaches on this subject or that subject, and still not believe it.

Any criticism is dismissed as lack of understanding. A circular argument.

No, but I have dismissed many of 'em based upon willful misunderstanding, for if certain passages really teach what some atheists claim they teach, then nobody would have ever believed it in the first place. However, atheists aren't the only ones who will pervert passages. They aren't even the most serious offenders.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 5:06:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 4:58:27 AM, annanicole wrote:
At 8/22/2015 4:49:44 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 8/22/2015 3:51:07 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
I have met plenty of atheists that have claimed to have read the Bible, but that does not mean they have any firm understanding of it. I will often find that they take verses out of context or even lack basic concepts of Biblical thought.
Reading =/= understanding

An assertion which is impossible to defend against. No matter how much understanding an atheist demonstrates you will always claim it is never enough or the understanding is flawed (the inane taking verses out of context mantra).

Untrue.

If you say so. Lol.

Therefore your assertion is entirely worthless. The only criteria you have for understanding the Bible is if you believe it, ie. buy the snake oil.

... and that's not true, either. One could understand very well what the Bible teaches on this subject or that subject, and still not believe it.

Not according to tstor. It wouldn't matter if Dawkins had read the book forwards, backwards and sideways. Reading =/= Understanding, don'tchaknow?

Any criticism is dismissed as lack of understanding. A circular argument.

No, but I have dismissed many of 'em based upon willful misunderstanding, for if certain passages really teach what some atheists claim they teach, then nobody would have ever believed it in the first place. However, atheists aren't the only ones who will pervert passages. They aren't even the most serious offenders.

Pervert according to what authority? There is none. I will, however, agree with your last sentence. Lol.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,083
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2015 5:23:23 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/22/2015 3:51:07 AM, tstor wrote:
At 8/22/2015 1:00:21 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

- I don't know about Religion in general. But, he is certainly illiterate about Islam.

He has read the Quran and the Hadiths. That makes him literate about Islam.
I have met plenty of atheists that have claimed to have read the Bible, but that does not mean they have any firm understanding of it. I will often find that they take verses out of context or even lack basic concepts of Biblical thought.

The same could be said of many who identify themselves as Christians. The problem isn't understanding the Bible, but rather understanding it differently than the believer prefers. Even IF the Bible is the inspired word of God (which is dubious), there is no God-breathed interpretation. The believer has no valid claim to authority on the meaning of the Bible.

Reading =/= understanding

As illustrated by the 10,000's of denominations of Christianity.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten