I'm going to listen to this as soon as I get a little time. David said he used some of my arguments.
5 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Bob Prokop writing:
Just finished watching the whole thing. Wood the clear winner (and I don't just say this because I largely agree with him). Loftus's arguments all too often can be paraphrased as "well, that's just absurd/ridiculous/whatever." And I was astonished (as was the audience, judging by the gasps and laughter) when Loftus ceded the point that the evidence was overwhelmingly AGAINST atheism - and this is supposed to be the guy arguing that there is no God??? I wish all my debates were that easy!
Ne never said the evidence "for God" was overwhelming - he said the evidence "against atheism" was.
As for when, I was cooking while playing the debate, so I wasn't watching for how far into the debate it was. (In fact, I wasn't "watching" at all, just listening.)
Well is there really a distinction between saying "evidence for God" and "evidence against atheism"? Atheism just is the belief that no God exists, and evidence against that would end up being evidence that a god does exist.
5 comments:
Bob Prokop writing:
Just finished watching the whole thing. Wood the clear winner (and I don't just say this because I largely agree with him). Loftus's arguments all too often can be paraphrased as "well, that's just absurd/ridiculous/whatever." And I was astonished (as was the audience, judging by the gasps and laughter) when Loftus ceded the point that the evidence was overwhelmingly AGAINST atheism - and this is supposed to be the guy arguing that there is no God???
I wish all my debates were that easy!
When does he admit that the evidence for God is overwhelming?
Bob Prokop writing:
Ne never said the evidence "for God" was overwhelming - he said the evidence "against atheism" was.
As for when, I was cooking while playing the debate, so I wasn't watching for how far into the debate it was. (In fact, I wasn't "watching" at all, just listening.)
Well is there really a distinction between saying "evidence for God" and "evidence against atheism"? Atheism just is the belief that no God exists, and evidence against that would end up being evidence that a god does exist.
Bob Prokop writing:
There may be a distinction in his mind, so I'm careful to repeat his words. Perhaps he was making an oblique reference to agnosticism?
Post a Comment