1. Comment #198404 by plastictowel on June 23, 2008 at 7:25 pm

You guys put this up already!
Regardless, an amazing debate of serious intellectual rigor (atkins) and farting (mcgrath).

Other Comments by plastictowel

2. Comment #198408 by blasphemer on June 23, 2008 at 7:43 pm

Why do I torture myself listening to another McGrath debate!?
Atkins is so right when he points out that McGrath just wants there to be a god to provide meaning and comfort for his life. McGrath provides the evidence for this himself in his discourse.

Other Comments by blasphemer

3. Comment #198411 by TranshumanAtheist on June 23, 2008 at 7:58 pm

How does a god solve the meaning-and-purpose problem, any way? A god could, without logical contradiction, have created human life without any meaning or purpose at all. For another scenario, consider:

http://www.box.net/shared/static/3v9eexfk0o.gif

Other Comments by TranshumanAtheist

4. Comment #198412 by TeraBrat on June 23, 2008 at 8:06 pm

This is disturbing. McGrath is a very good charismatic speaker while Atkins is a bit "blah" in his speech mode. I'm not saying McGrath is right, but, a lot of people are won over by charisma.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

5. Comment #198418 by Saerain on June 23, 2008 at 8:55 pm

Is there a cough-free second in any of this? It sounds as if the room is being gassed.

Other Comments by Saerain

6. Comment #198419 by lhunt3 on June 23, 2008 at 9:12 pm

"What is the meaning of life?" "Why are we here?"

What could possibly be a meaningful answer to this question other than one that invokes claims about the world, and thus becomes a matter for science? If it's simply a matter of value, then it is true that science cannot study it. But then again, it would be a question that has many different answers to depending on who you are.

And besides, religions do much more than give us values. They make claims about the world. When will people like McGrath finally get this. I can get values any where I want to, but believing in a sky daddy who has a son born of a virgin, etc... is not the best way.

Either way, I can't even think of a possible answer to the question of why we are here. It's not a real question.

Other Comments by lhunt3

7. Comment #198420 by TeraBrat on June 23, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Ihunt3,

If you're religious it's easy. You're here to amuse and entertain god because even though he is so unbelievably all powerful and can create the most complex things with the snap of a finger, he's bored. In a nutshell you're gods' toy. And that's why we aren't immortal, all petulant children need to be able to break their toys and recieve new ones.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

8. Comment #198422 by Goldy on June 23, 2008 at 9:42 pm

TB

I'm not saying McGrath is right, but, a lot of people are won over by charisma.

Maybe, but then they'll read his book, or another fleabook, then maybe they'll stop to think ;-)
As it is, if you really believe, you'll never be swayed by anything. If you are wavering then it's either the "dark side" or another religion - my money's on another religion...probably Buddhism ;-). If you don't believe, then whatever McG's charisma, he is wrong and you know it.
Right, off home now. Must pick up fuel for fire - sodding cold today!

Other Comments by Goldy

9. Comment #198424 by Inferno on June 23, 2008 at 9:51 pm

I always thought McG had the charisma of a wet sock.

He had over an hour in the unedited interview for Root of All Evil to get his message across, but didn't say anything worth while.

Other Comments by Inferno

10. Comment #198428 by Quine on June 23, 2008 at 10:26 pm

Forget pulling out fingernails, if you wanted to get any information out of me by force, all you would have to do is have McG start talking.

Other Comments by Quine

11. Comment #198433 by crabsallover on June 23, 2008 at 11:52 pm

Peter Atkins advocates 'strong scientism'. Other than The Creation (1981) and Creation Revisited (1993) books does anyone know of any more recent writings by Peter Atkins on scientism?

Other Comments by crabsallover

12. Comment #198434 by DjSouthPaw on June 23, 2008 at 11:53 pm

He makes a really good point in the first part though!.. the initial reason for doubting all theology for me. was people claiming there was a "why?" that applied to the existence of the universe , instead of just how

it's good pointing out that there is something childish and immature in the way we think that the universe owes us comfort

Other Comments by DjSouthPaw

13. Comment #198440 by Thor'Ungal on June 24, 2008 at 12:55 am

I find it hard to see why believers feel they have any more "meaning of life" than we do. We are unbelievably happy that we are alive. They are unbelievably happy that they will be saved from their wretched, sinful existence, go to heaven and live FOREVER worshiping God.

Don't know about you but doesn't this beg the question "why" should this be concidered a meaning of life. It's almost like saying that the meaning of life for a dairy cow is to provide the farmer with milk. Externalising your meanings to life do not go about solving them.

On another point (previously made) I have trouble reconing why the idea of existing forever doesn't give more people the creeps. How many billions of years would it take before you went insane just for a bit of variety.

Other Comments by Thor'Ungal

14. Comment #198441 by freiversuch on June 24, 2008 at 1:04 am

Boy, he really wiped the floor with McG. Lovely how these stupid arguments were destroyed in rapid speed.

Other Comments by freiversuch

15. Comment #198443 by Johnny O on June 24, 2008 at 1:12 am

Here's another Peter Atkins debate...

Thinking Critically

Other Comments by Johnny O

16. Comment #198448 by clodhopper on June 24, 2008 at 1:44 am

McGrath:

When I was young I used to be an amateur astronomer and I used to look at the night sky and I knew just enough astronomy to know that the light from some of those stars wouldn't hit earth for hundreds of years

WTF. Am I missing something? I suspect he'll find that the light from the stars he's looking at must already have reached earth......der!

Other Comments by clodhopper

17. Comment #198449 by gcdavis on June 24, 2008 at 1:44 am

Not a great debate and I was surprised at Atkins response to the faith in atheism question, instead of banging on about simplicity what he should have said is that atheism is simply an absence of faith, no more, no less. Perhaps what he meant was that atheism is the neutral state, before ideas of any type have been superimposed upon it. And this absence of faith is not restricted to belief in god but belief in anything. I stopped using the word believe about 40 years ago, preferring the phrase "it is reasonable to assume" and if my opinion on any matter is challenged I offer a rational explanation. Of course there are times when my opinion is confronted by another more convincing one and I have to change my mind.

Other Comments by gcdavis

18. Comment #198453 by clatz on June 24, 2008 at 2:30 am

clodhopper, that sentence is correct if he means the light the star is producing at the point in time he is gazing at it, not the light he is actually seeing.

Other Comments by clatz

19. Comment #198457 by clodhopper on June 24, 2008 at 2:45 am

clatz: You're right....just me being slow....but in that case he could've been a bit more generous and said millions of years.

As I was watching I noticed in the list of related videos is 'Voodoo Child - Jimi Hendrix live at Woodstock' - Now that is tempting!

Peter Atkins:

"eating your grandmother might be a good thing to do"

Oh, I think not Peter...serious indegestion territory. But then the price of food is shocking.

Other Comments by clodhopper

20. Comment #198460 by rod-the-farmer on June 24, 2008 at 2:56 am

In the first section where McGrath speaks, he lost my vote. He says he had to "re-orientate" himself. No such word. Re-orient himself, certainly. A professor ? Bah.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

21. Comment #198462 by mr-zero on June 24, 2008 at 3:25 am

McGrath has charisma? He makes my flesh crawl. The Uriah Heap of the religious community
Z

Other Comments by mr-zero

22. Comment #198468 by Lemniscate on June 24, 2008 at 4:24 am

Whoever is won over by McGrath's charisma has a strange idea about charisma. Atkins has oodles more charisma than McGrath.

When asked a difficult question, McGrath physically squirms around while telling you how interesting and important the question is. That's the antithesis of charisma for an intellectual, in my opinion.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

23. Comment #198470 by rod-the-farmer on June 24, 2008 at 4:55 am

Codswallop. I actually took the time to listen to it while counting the number of times McGrath says "It seems to me". I found about a dozen of them. This is perhaps just a phrase he is in the habit of using, and no more need be said about it, OR, an indication of how weak his arguments are, that he can only make a point based on his own thinking. Never mind the facts, this is how I think....

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

24. Comment #198478 by bugaboo on June 24, 2008 at 5:47 am

"There is no why"-Yoda

Other Comments by bugaboo

25. Comment #198483 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 6:00 am

Goldy,

Very few people want to think. Ignorance is bliss.

Inferno,

Very few people listen very carefully to both sides. McGrath is animated and flows while Atkins is somwhat dry and hesitant, especially in the Q& A portion. Public speaking is an art. McGrath is a natural, Atkins isn't.

I'm going to stress again, who is right usually doesn't matter because that tends to be subjective. Unless you are "on the fence" you are not going to be swayed either way. Most people are naturally drawn to the more charismatic speaker. American politicians win elections on this factor. It's very important.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

26. Comment #198489 by Logicel on June 24, 2008 at 6:18 am

I find McGrath mannerisms and voice so repelling that I would not be able to even listen to him if he made any sense, which he doesn't. His kind of 'charisma' is outdated.

As for the title, Mind of God? Sigh. Then where is his body?

Other Comments by Logicel

27. Comment #198490 by irate_atheist on June 24, 2008 at 6:20 am

25. Comment #198483 by TeraBrat -

Goldy,

Very few people want to think. Ignorance is bliss.

"Most people would rather die than think; in fact, they do so" - Bertrand Russell.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

28. Comment #198496 by Am I Evil? on June 24, 2008 at 6:28 am

A fly on the wall in the McGrath household:

MRS McGRATH: What would you like for dinner, dear?

MR McGRATH: Well, if I can just come back on that actually, I think you've raised a very interesting point, pivotal to the way this discussion should continue. This is certainly something that needs to be engaged with and explored further. It seems to me that there are areas we can push into here that can challenge us and I welcome that. When I was an atheist, these on-gonig philosophical subjects were subject to different interpretations and perspectives so, suffice to say, the Christian faith has fortified me and others to take all of these very very very interesting points into account and offer an explanation such as this: Egg and chips will be fine, love.

MRS McGRATH: I'm leaving you.

Other Comments by Am I Evil?

29. Comment #198500 by Vaal on June 24, 2008 at 6:40 am

Egg and chips? McGrath strikes me more as a peas man :-)

Other Comments by Vaal

30. Comment #198505 by mixmastergaz on June 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

Alister McGrath is an anagram of "light act Mr Arse" which is probably insignificant but kept me amused for a minute.

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

31. Comment #198509 by MaxWeiss on June 24, 2008 at 7:12 am

Ugh, that's depressing... McGrath is such a good presenter but has so little substance, and Atkins has so so many good points that just fly over the audience and McGrath because he's such a poor speaker and antagonizes McGrath so often.

That was a useless debate because no good points were allowed to be expanded upon. Atkins couldn't condense his ideas, and McGrath couldn't understand them when Atkins attempted to explain them.

Like the whole good and evil part was very important because one could easily show what McGrath thinks (there are absolute right and wrongs which are divined via god) and what Atkins thinks (just because the universe doesn't care doesn't mean we can't establish ethics based on actions/consequences) but neither was able to really step up and present that.

If Atkins could explain himself better and was more personable, he'd win over the audience by a landslide.

Oh well....

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

32. Comment #198511 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:17 am

I am surprised at the negative comments regarding Atkins. I thought Atkins was great - I like his abrasive personality, and direct statements.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

33. Comment #198512 by Philip1978 on June 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

Am I Evil?

Very funny, cheers for that, you have got his special god given drivel just right!

Imagine if his wife was the same, would they actually get anything done? :)

Other Comments by Philip1978

34. Comment #198515 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 7:29 am

Comment #198496 by Am I Evil?

Very nice!

But, you have missed out a section:

"from my experience of kitchen, and the nature of kitchen, and what I see within kitchen, I view the tables and the chairs and having viewed them, I see that I have the understanding - the realisation - that the context of the furniture and all it entails, embodies the very essence of what I feel to be leading up to [and so on for about an hour ...] the feeling of a belief that I would like egg and chips, and so this provides a foundation for my appetite."

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #198517 by decius on June 24, 2008 at 7:32 am

McGrath's charisma is comparable to that of a rancid mozzarella.

edited for lack of originality

Other Comments by decius

36. Comment #198521 by lol mahmood on June 24, 2008 at 7:48 am

Is there an MP3 link anywhere? I usually download debates like this to listen to on long drives.

Other Comments by lol mahmood

37. Comment #198525 by gcdavis on June 24, 2008 at 7:58 am

Am I Evil: A lovely pastiche, I could even hear McGrath's voice as I read it

Other Comments by gcdavis

38. Comment #198527 by clatz on June 24, 2008 at 8:01 am

I think they should really say: Should we rid our minds of God.

To me one of McGraths last statements was the most telling:

I don't think Darwin helps us understand why we believe in God at all.

I can't fathom it. If he believes the theory of evolution (which I had thought he said he did), then he must hold that there is the very real possibility that the belief in God(s) is the by-product of some other evolved characteristic.

So his statement is bollocks, even to himself.

Of course he then goes on to say:

I think the question is wide open.

I'm taking that to mean that he holds his first statement to be bollocks, and that it could be a by-product of evolution, or it could be due to another reason.

Fair enough, why didn't you just say that!

Other Comments by clatz

39. Comment #198530 by black wolf on June 24, 2008 at 8:08 am

McGrath: 'please don't take the meaning out of my life'
Q: Well professor, what then is that meaning?
McGrath: 'it's very big and valuable and sentimentally pleasing...'
Q: What is it?
McGrath: 'there are a lot of books about it...'
Q: What is their conclusion, and why do you agree with them?
McGrath: 'it's very big and valuable and sentimentally pleasing...'

AAAARRRGHHHH!

Other Comments by black wolf

40. Comment #198540 by Teratornis on June 24, 2008 at 8:30 am

Comment #198420 by TeraBrat:

If you're religious it's easy. You're here to amuse and entertain god because even though he is so unbelievably all powerful and can create the most complex things with the snap of a finger, he's bored. In a nutshell you're gods' toy. And that's why we aren't immortal, all petulant children need to be able to break their toys and recieve new ones.

But how can we entertain an omniscient being? The God of Abrahamic myth already knows everything that will happen, which includes everything we will do. Thus we cannot surprise God. Everything God observes the universe doing conveys zero information to God, since information = surprise, and an omniscient God can never experience surprise.

A human can approximate what life as an omniscient being is like by watching the same movie at least 1000 times. By that time, the human can recite every line with the actors, and knows everything that will happen before it happens.

By that point, watching the movie becomes a kind of ritual, an unsurprising going-through-of-motions. There is no more wonder, no more feeling impressed at anything, no thrill of discovery, no newness whatsoever.

An omniscient being would experience the universe that way, only moreso. Being God must be often having to say, "Yeah, yeah, I know the drill, get on with it."

Have any theologians studied information theory? Have they bothered to consider the information-theoretic implications of their claims about God?

Other Comments by Teratornis

41. Comment #198668 by Barry Pearson on June 24, 2008 at 10:58 am

Is there any evidence anywhere that Alister McGrath was ever an atheist? I didn't hear any here, nor in other talks I've heard from him, and I attended a talk by him in Birmingham in 2004 called "The Twilight of Atheism" and I don't think there was there either.

He made it clear here he was "anti-religion" because of the situation in Belfast. But what has that got to do with being an atheist? Did he ever genuinely not believe that gods exists?

I suspect he just makes the claim (assuming he actually understands the difference) to establish "street cred". (Peter Atkins appears to suspect the same!)

See also:
"Was Alister McGrath once an atheist of the "rotweiler" type? "
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/07/was-alister-mcgrath-once-atheist-of.html

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

42. Comment #198676 by TeraBrat on June 24, 2008 at 11:03 am

Teratonis,

I was being sarcastic.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve,

This was the first time I ever heard either of them debate. I paid more attention to the style than the content. Objectively speaking without knowing them and without paying attention to what they actually say (which is what moat people do) McGrath won hands down.

You have a preconceived bias that colors what you saw and heard.

It's natural, I'm not picking on you.

Other Comments by TeraBrat

43. Comment #198677 by al-rawandi on June 24, 2008 at 11:04 am

Tera Bat,





Teratornis had the humor chip removed at the factory.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

44. Comment #198679 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on June 24, 2008 at 11:08 am

Here's how religious Americans are: Only 73 percent of the athiests don't believe in god.
http://improbable.com/...

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

45. Comment #198683 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 11:13 am

You have a preconceived bias that colors what you saw and heard.

I did not say who was considered to have won the debate. I simply said that I happened to like Atkins' style most of the time.

This debate illustrates why I think such events are pointless, and why I would not take part in one. You can't get reasoned live debate between people who won't agree the rules about what constitutes reason and evidence.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

46. Comment #198690 by al-rawandi on June 24, 2008 at 11:16 am

Steve,







I come to play golf, you come dressed in a pink bunny outfit with a cross bow.... I doubt we will have a good round of golf. Such is debating these IDiots.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

47. Comment #198733 by notsobad on June 24, 2008 at 12:09 pm

McGrath? He has nothing new to offer.

Other Comments by notsobad

48. Comment #198750 by Urim on June 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Regarding life in the McGrath household, I'm afraid it's far worse than that. Joanna Collicutt McGrath is also a theologian (actually a lecturer in Psychology of Religion at University of London ). She co-wrote The Dawkins Delusion with her spouse and completely shares his point of view.

She wrote this piece in the Saturday Guardian faith column a few weeks ago which read like warmed over Alister tripe.

I'll leave finer minds to re-imagine the McGrath breakfast table in the light of this.

Other Comments by Urim

49. Comment #198758 by Steve Zara on June 24, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #198750 by Urim

She wrote this piece in the Saturday Guardian faith column a few weeks ago which read like warmed over Alister tripe.

Actually, It seems mostly pretty good to me (apart from the assumption that the "selfish gene" idea is teleological). I think it describes the psychology of things pretty reasonably.

What I can't understand is how someone can realise all this, and still believe.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

50. Comment #198766 by Urim on June 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

rod-the-farmer:

In the first section where McGrath speaks, he lost my vote. He says he had to "re-orientate" himself. No such word. Re-orient himself, certainly. A professor ? Bah.

Unnecessarily harsh. British English prefers the verb "orientate" where American English uses "orient". As a Brit who prefers the economy of the American form of the verb, I have often been corrected by others.

Other Comments by Urim