Dr. Craig vs. Peter Atkins: "Does God Exist?"

[Reasonable Faith]

This forum is open for discussion about William Lane Craig's debate with Dr. Peter Atkins, former Professor of Chemistry at Oxford University.

26th October 2011, University Place Lecture Theatre, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester

Video: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/craig-vs-atkins-university-of-manchester

[John Quin]

Now you're just teasing us. The audio/video hasn't even been released yet.

Oh well I guess the thread is ready and waiting.

[Stephen WHC]

Atkins was incredibly unprofessional and dogmatic. The moderator joked, Atkins serves as the devil's advocate: and I truly saw an image of the devil squirming on Judgement Day. He operated by insinuation, accusation, proclamation but never argumentation. What did he argue exactly? Something along the lines of: "be open-minded... be liberal... free yourself... and submit to the learned elders of Oxford! God is not permitted in the sciences-- Also Sprach Atkins." Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

What was even harder to watch was Dr. Craig gracefully taking this man seriously for the entire debate. I wondered, at what point will Dr. Craig break and mock the poor fool? I think in British circles this is the appropriate method. In German American circles, maybe not: so this never happened. I haven't really understood what a shill is until watching Dr. Craig reduce Atkins-Hitchens-Dawkins to sweet nothings. So if these men are paid shills (they are all making mucho denaro I'm sure, telling from obstinacy and lack of originality or preparation), why not call them out on it?

Dr. Craig may be too well-schooled or formalized to see the politics underneath the Oxford crew's attempt to socially engineer Christ out of Britain. Or it may simply not apply to the constraints of the debate, which is painful to watch only one party take in good faith. Again and again, though, the atheist is left wanting the most basic form of justification. Again and again, alas, an audience divided.

[Pieter]

Corioa wrote: Atkins was incredibly unprofessional and dogmatic. The moderator joked, Atkins serves as the devil's advocate: and I truly saw an image of the devil squirming on Judgement Day. He operated by insinuation, accusation, proclamation but never argumentation. What did he argue exactly? Something along the lines of: "be open-minded... be liberal... free yourself... and submit to the learned elders of Oxford! God is not permitted in the sciences-- Also Sprach Atkins." Yet regardless of his self-assurance of wisdom, he however was at a complete loss to address a single argument Dr. Craig gave.

What was even harder to watch was Dr. Craig gracefully taking this man seriously for the entire debate. I wondered, at what point will Dr. Craig break and mock the poor fool? I think in British circles this is the appropriate method. In German American circles, maybe not: so this never happened. I haven't really understood what a shill is until watching Dr. Craig reduce Atkins-Hitchens-Dawkins to sweet nothings. So if these men are paid shills (they are all making mucho denaro I'm sure, telling from obstinacy and lack of originality or preparation), why not call them out on it?

Dr. Craig may be too well-schooled or formalized to see the politics underneath the Oxford crew's attempt to socially engineer Christ out of Britain. Or it may simply not apply to the constraints of the debate, which is painful to watch only one party take in good faith. Again and again, though, the atheist is left wanting the most basic form of justification. Again and again, alas, an audience divided.

Yep I have seen Atkins making such grand foolish assertions putting Christians down but not actually doing any attempt to defend this. It's just bluffing and appealing/abusing the general popular respect for science. The trouble is that in Britain, people don't really challange this, because it is generally assumed that you can't prove God's existence or that science and religion do not overlap (noma) and so this gives them just free reign.

[Don Quixote]

I was amazed to see him actually debate WLC again after the Bill Buckley moderated event where WLC obliterated Atkins. He made the same "we are really not here" argument then. Seems like Decart seems to have pretty much sealed this one off with his - I think therefore I am realization.

Interestingly Dawkins feels like Atkins should win the Nobel Prize.

[njdeputter]

Any audio/video available yet?

[above]

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

[Alexander]

above wrote: I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

[FNB - Former non-believer]

Alexander wrote:

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

How does that follow?

[Sandspirit]

How does that follow?

perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.

[FNB - Former non-believer]

How does that follow?

perhaps because you are not actually looking for truth and explanation and understanding. You just want to confirm your beliefs.

Just because you believe one side has the better arguments doesn't mean this.

Really being open to the truth is a very uncomfortable feeling. Recognising that there is no certainty, we know nothing for sure, we just do the best we can, this is scary.

I think it would be as scary to the atheist as the Christian, and I think we do, in fact know things for sure, or at least can be very confident that they are true. I don't buy this whole philosophically induced skepticism about knowledge.

Jesus is a very ambiguous figure. If he brought anything it wasn't certainty. Abandon your families and everything you have - how many so called christians do this? You all want your nice homes, comfortable lives, big cars and the promise of heaven at the end of having done nothing.

I wouldn't call this ambiguous, I would call it amazing. Your right, people don't do enough. I thank God for the example of Jesus who calls me to follow him and change the world.

[Alexander]

emailestthoume wrote:

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

How does that follow?

Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

[FNB - Former non-believer]

Alexander wrote:

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

How does that follow?

Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.

[Alexander]

emailestthoume wrote:

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

How does that follow?

Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.

Hence me saying "likely," and not "for sure."

[FNB - Former non-believer]

Alexander wrote:

I watched the first debate, where Craig utterly humiliated peter so I expect this one to be an even bigger wash. I still find it remarkable how no atheists to date has been able to undermine a single one of Craig's arguments, let alone win the debate.

It's either that Craig is just that brilliant (and maybe he is) or he's simple on to something. And I think we all know what that is.

As long as you agree with Dr. Craig's arguments you will likely never think that he lost a debate, no matter how they go.

How does that follow?

Most people are going to side with the person they agree with in a debate. Just like in sports when a team loses a game they almost always feel that they "should have" won (unless it was a complete blowout). Likewise, in a debate people will typically remember the good points that are made in favor of their side while excusing or rationalizing any of the rebuttals from the opposing side. "Remember the hits and forget the misses."

Your right that this can happen, but it doesn't have to.

Hence me saying "likely," and not "for sure."

Well I did see "almost always," as  well. And I was a little surprised to see that you responded to someone who was giving an opinion about a debate you probably haven't even seen yet with these comments, which is why I said something. But to continue with your sports analogy, if one team has a significantly better record or lineup, people usually know that one side has the better team (in the analogy this would represent the better arguments) even if they are hardcore fans of the other team. I know all about it, I am a Bears fan but I realize they suck.