I think Christopher did very good but they made him look inflexible on his position and he fell into their certainty trap. I am not 100% certain of my position but the personal God people have way more to defend. Christopher could of simply said what evidence would convince you there is no God?
As a side note: I can't believe Dennis Prager said all art today is crap. Sure there is a bunch of crap in art today (literally) but to say there are no good secular artists or musicians due to secularism is way too extreme. There are great classical music composers today. What about folk, jazz, blues and rock today? The same in the visual arts. Let's go back to the dark ages for his favorite art work. What? Dennis Prager has his head in the sand and just doesn't like today's world. I think they had glasses before the Enlightenment but the science was not anywhere near as good as it is now and I wonder if Dennis could enjoy that visual artwork of the time. He could enjoy the music but only at live concerts so forget about any recordings.
I found this interesting. There were new questions asked and new answers proposed. It allows me to think how I would answer those questions if ever asked. Prager is like a preacher to me. I'd love to shut him down, especially when it comes to his statement if you don't believe you'll believe anything. I think C.S. Lewis first suggested this. My retort would be that if you believe rather than demand evidence you'll believe anything.
And as far as which person behind which door I'd choose to risk his life to save mine goes, I'd stress two things: 1) Delusional people who hope for a life after can have a greater propensity to risk their lives to save others, but they can also have a greater tendency to be suicide bombers, or to get into a war in the first place. 2) A secular person will risk his life to save another person simply because he might not be able to live with himself knowing he didn't try, if he didn't help when asked. Some things are not worth refusing when asked, and human life is the most important thing of all.
I'd love to shut him down, especially when it comes to his statement if you don't believe you'll believe anything. I think C.S. Lewis first suggested this. John, I believe the idea goes back to GK Chesterton. Here is the quote: "When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
Interesting comments from John and MerryAtheist....
John - why do you want to "shut him down?" I thought free speech was an important thing to the left? Or is that just for anarchists and those who believe in the things you believe in? Please...be consistent. You're lack of intellectual honesty greatly decreases your credibility. Same for you Merry. Why do people on the left always resort to name-calling (see merry's post call ing Prager an "utter buffoon") when they can't counter a cogent, solid argument? Apparently, Merry prefers name-calling and emotional rants to the "droning on" of clarity and solid rhetorical argument. That's fine for the child-like Daily Kos and all it's philosphical cousins, but you wouldn't even last a day on a respectable high school debate team.
7 comments:
I'm sorry I missed this opportunity. The videos are no longer available.
Heretic in Alabama
You can find these videos here.
I think Christopher did very good but they made him look inflexible on his position and he fell into their certainty trap. I am not 100% certain of my position but the personal God people have way more to defend. Christopher could of simply said what evidence would convince you there is no God?
As a side note:
I can't believe Dennis Prager said all art today is crap. Sure there is a bunch of crap in art today (literally) but to say there are no good secular artists or musicians due to secularism is way too extreme. There are great classical music composers today. What about folk, jazz, blues and rock today? The same in the visual arts. Let's go back to the dark ages for his favorite art work. What? Dennis Prager has his head in the sand and just doesn't like today's world. I think they had glasses before the Enlightenment but the science was not anywhere near as good as it is now and I wonder if Dennis could enjoy that visual artwork of the time. He could enjoy the music but only at live concerts so forget about any recordings.
I got through most of it, but found myself skipping forward whenever Dennis Prager was droning on. The man is an utter buffoon.
I found this interesting. There were new questions asked and new answers proposed. It allows me to think how I would answer those questions if ever asked. Prager is like a preacher to me. I'd love to shut him down, especially when it comes to his statement if you don't believe you'll believe anything. I think C.S. Lewis first suggested this. My retort would be that if you believe rather than demand evidence you'll believe anything.
And as far as which person behind which door I'd choose to risk his life to save mine goes, I'd stress two things: 1) Delusional people who hope for a life after can have a greater propensity to risk their lives to save others, but they can also have a greater tendency to be suicide bombers, or to get into a war in the first place. 2) A secular person will risk his life to save another person simply because he might not be able to live with himself knowing he didn't try, if he didn't help when asked. Some things are not worth refusing when asked, and human life is the most important thing of all.
I'd love to shut him down, especially when it comes to his statement if you don't believe you'll believe anything. I think C.S. Lewis first suggested this.
John, I believe the idea goes back to GK Chesterton. Here is the quote:
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they believe in anything."
Interesting comments from John and MerryAtheist....
John - why do you want to "shut him down?" I thought free speech was an important thing to the left? Or is that just for anarchists and those who believe in the things you believe in? Please...be consistent. You're lack of intellectual honesty greatly decreases your credibility. Same for you Merry. Why do people on the left always resort to name-calling (see merry's post call ing Prager an "utter buffoon") when they can't counter a cogent, solid argument? Apparently, Merry prefers name-calling and emotional rants to the "droning on" of clarity and solid rhetorical argument. That's fine for the child-like Daily Kos and all it's philosphical cousins, but you wouldn't even last a day on a respectable high school debate team.
Post a Comment