1. Comment #27038 by James Carroll on March 23, 2007 at 1:56 am

Professor Atkins is amazing, and he was phenomenal in the debate. He made many great points and had a counterpoint to everything that Mr. McGrath said.

My confidence in my own atheism has risen ten-fold after listening to Mr. Peter Atkins talk.

Thanks for posting this, and thanks Professor Atkins for brilliantly defending atheism. It's a pleasure to listen to.

Other Comments by James Carroll

2. Comment #27050 by bokonon on March 23, 2007 at 3:29 am

How very annoying McGrath is!

To Summarise: "I used to be an atheist. I discovered that I wanted to believe in God. Don't we all want to believe in this nonsense? Why can't we just do this then?"

Aaargh!

And the two piles of scientists who believe or disbelieve: They are very much not equal in size.

Other Comments by bokonon

3. Comment #27051 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 3:36 am

I enjoyed this. In particular i was happy to be reminded of this piece of wisdom:

"Why are we here?" : 'why' questions presuppose an underlying intentionality, a creator. This is an unjustified supposition. Hence, it's the wrong question.

Other Comments by bitbutter

4. Comment #27053 by Cineaste on March 23, 2007 at 3:43 am

Once the exchanges started, Atkins dominated this debate.

Other Comments by Cineaste

5. Comment #27056 by Rtambree on March 23, 2007 at 3:50 am

A useful debating trick would be to ask the audience to just insert "Zeus" for whenever your theist opponent argues for God. The absurdity should immediately become self evident for the fence-sitters.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #27058 by bitbutter on March 23, 2007 at 4:00 am

Much as McGrath irritates my socks off, and i think his position is indefensible, he does seem to be a skillful orator. The impression that he's thought the issues through is helped a long way just by his talking clearly and slowly, without any stopgaps.

A useful debating trick would be to ask the audience to just insert "Zeus" for whenever your theist opponent argues for God. The absurdity should immediately become self evident for the fence-sitters.

:) i'd like to see someone use that.

Other Comments by bitbutter

7. Comment #27061 by Rtambree on March 23, 2007 at 4:10 am

>he does seem to be a skillful orator.

Yes, I've noticed in many of the ID v Evolution and God v Atheism debates, the theists are the better, slicker, more articulate speakers.

Obviously if you have facts and logic on your side, you feel you don't need charm and if you're in a logically weak position, you have to compensate with charisma and wit.

In an ideal world, debates aren't decided by rhetorical skills, but by evidence.

Other Comments by Rtambree

8. Comment #27070 by alovrin on March 23, 2007 at 4:50 am

Oh shit, crap audio.
Sorry guys this shouldnt be posted the audio is rubbish. They obviously had a PA but relying on the camera mic to pick up the audio is criminal.
For f*^ks sake its 2007 get a feed from the PA, use a radio link, run a long lead, the camera is obviously going to be stationary.
This just annoys the FUCK out of me
it is UNLISTENABLE. For Darwins sake dont be so damn lazy what are you hippies, Technological savages.
Its NOT HARD
FIND AN OUTPUT ON THE PA TO FEED TO THE F*#KING CAMERA. IF YOU NEED ANY HELP ASK SOMEONE BUY A LEAD FROM TANDY BEFORE THE LECTURE, MEASURE THE DISTANCE JUST TO MAKE SURE THE BLOODY THING IS LONG ENOUGH.
IF THE OUTPUT SAYS LINE SWITCH THE INPUT ON THE CAMERA TO LINE IF IT SAYS MIC SWITCH THE INPUT ON THE CAMERA TO MIC BUY SOME BLOODY HEADPHONES IF YOU DONT OWN A PAIR TO LISTEN TO YOUR BLOODY IPOD AND PLUG THEM INTO THE HEADPHONE OUTPUT ON THE CAMERA AND ADJUST THE LEVEL WHILE THE INTRODUCTIONS ARE GOING ON .

SHITTTTTTTTT AGHHHHHH
WHOEVER SHOT THIS SHOULD BE SHOT IDIOT.. MORON....
CRETIN I REFUSE TO LISTEN NO MATTER HOW BLOODY GOOD ANYONES ARGUMENT IS FUCKKKKKKKKKKK.

Other Comments by alovrin

9. Comment #27072 by ImagineAZ on March 23, 2007 at 4:52 am

I wasn't impressed by Atkins, though I quit about an hour into it.

The simple explanation for the believers' superior oratory powers is that everything they say is rehearsed, nothing new. They don't THINK to answer questions; they simply pull out the rehearsed answer that most closely answers the question.

I'm not even convinced that McGrath believes in the god he defends. His arguments don't convince me that even he's convinced. He just has a point to defend, so he's defending to the best of his ability.

I really wish I was at one of these debates. Every question and Christian point is SOOOO thrashable, they should be dissected to the point where every person in the room would have to accept the fact that it's no point at all.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

10. Comment #27083 by Habalabam on March 23, 2007 at 5:29 am

I thought that I would read the "The Dawkins delusion". I'm now positive that I wouldn't come past the preface without my retort buffer running over.

McGraths arrogance at even pretending to present an argument is just annoying. He got his butt handed to him nicely.

I think that Atkins could have made a better argument on what science means by "economical explanation". As it stood, Gods existence passed as an economical explanation.

Atkins should've stuck to the "God hypothesis is proposed, now pending evidence"-definition of atheism.
The door was definitely open when a womans question presuppposed atheism as an ANSWER. It's not. It's just a term whose existence is regrettable because it describes a position that does not require a term in any other context.

Atkins approach on "why"-questions as unjustified was very well presented. His description of the scientific method likewise.

I think McGrath can be summarized by
"wouldn't it be great if...... therefore, let's pretend that such is the case" and "wouldn't it suck if....... therefore, let's ignore it".

I believe McGrath got away with the point of Darwin being a contemporary scientific position. It was a sneaky version of the "just-a-theory-not-a-fact". Atkins shouldn't have ignored that one.

Other Comments by Habalabam

11. Comment #27088 by ImagineAZ on March 23, 2007 at 5:41 am

When I debate a believer, I try to keep the arguments as simple and logical as possible. I have de-converted many and even those who won't admit defeat are clearly defeated. It is regrettable that some obviously come to the realization that they believe in something fictional but they simply won't say the words "You're right," but a happy fact of the universe is that nobody who thinks like that will try to stop gay people from getting married or fly a plane into a building. It takes strength of conviction to assert your beliefs in that way, and no one has that strength of conviction after having a debate with a well-spoken opponent.

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

12. Comment #27090 by MIND_REBEL on March 23, 2007 at 5:45 am

Not impressed with McGrath. Him denying the existence of memes is like an alcoholic denying the existence of alcohol. Besides his meme denial, i thought his arguments were vaccous.

I would tell McGrath that were both atheists, just he believes in one less god than me.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

13. Comment #27091 by ImagineAZ on March 23, 2007 at 5:56 am

I just love it when people ask me stupid questions like "If God doesn't exist, why do so many people believe in him?"

I reply with equal logic: "About 2/3 of the world is not Christian. So by your argument of strength in numbers, you just got out-voted 2 to 1. Once, EVERYBODY believed that the world was flat. That doesn't make them right."

Other Comments by ImagineAZ

14. Comment #27092 by Estragon on March 23, 2007 at 5:57 am

If I have to hear McGrath's little life story once more I will shoot myself. Frankly this got me depressed right from when that guy told us he was president of the Christian Union and the Philosophy society (one is about free intellectual enquiry, the other about pushing some ridiculous dogmas on as many people as possible).

Well done to Peter Atkins anyway.

Other Comments by Estragon

15. Comment #27094 by Quine on March 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

I would have asked McGrath,"if Santa Clause does not exist, why do so many children believe in him?"

Other Comments by Quine

16. Comment #27097 by Janey on March 23, 2007 at 6:12 am

Pretty much the standard Religion v Science debate with the Scientist standing firm, his feet entrenched in the concrete of reason and evidence while the Religious advocate dances gaily around him sprinkling theological contrivances and appealing to the audiences spiritual uncertainties to make his points.

One thing McGrath said I found rather odd and contrary to what most people I know see and understand:

"When I was young I used to be an amateur astronomer, 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 and to me, that simply said to me, you will be dead by then and so the night sky was a symbol of melancholy, a reminder of the brevity of life."

Well I certainly have never felt melancholy when looking at the night sky. I have always seen wonder, awe, beauty and it has always given me a burning desire to know more about the universe, humanity and myself. It tells me how lucky I am to be alive, to be sitting there able to view it all and makes me realize just how precious this planet and all of its occupants are to me, it makes me want to get on with life, to do all I can and most of all live! It does not leave me fearful, downhearted and weeping at the feet of some supernatural being, worshiping it and begging to be spared the fate of all other things in the universe. Some of the most magical moments in my life have taken place under the blanket of the "heavens" and I would be happy to depart this mortal coil with its image fading in my eyes.

This one depressing negative view of something I and many others find so inspiring, to me at least, says so much more about the man than anything else he said during the debate.

Cheer up Alister (BIGHUG) :)

Talking about his presentational abilities, Alister McGrath has one of those wonderful voices that seem too be scattered liberally through out the ranks of the Anglican clergy. Every time I hear him speak I am minded to imagine a mitre upon his head, a large jewel encrusted crucifix dangling from his neck and him gently swaying as he preaches his sermon to the gathered faithful. As he speaks I find myself slowly drifting off into the same bored stupor I used to find myself drifting into when I used to attend church, the feeling of having heard so much, but learnt so very little.

Having said that, I envisage many people brought up in the Anglican tradition may find his tone and demeanour rather comforting and some indication of "authority" (something I imagine he is aware of and plays to the full) but to me it just emphasises the tradition he his speaking for and makes it very easy for me to slot his ideas straight into the bottom draw where they belong.

Other Comments by Janey

17. Comment #27107 by Luthien on March 23, 2007 at 6:53 am

So Alister McGrath is supposed to have grown up here in Belfast? Where the hell is his Irish accent? Why does he talk like a toff?

Oh, and that silly Catholic Atheist / Protestant Atheist joke is soooo old it makes me cringe to hear it trotted out yet again.

*edit*
Oh, and how sad that he didn't like feeling insignificant when looking at the stars. Poor little lamb.

Other Comments by Luthien

18. Comment #27122 by diquea on March 23, 2007 at 8:03 am

I wish it weren't so difficult to hear. It's a bit muffled

Other Comments by diquea

19. Comment #27123 by Rtambree on March 23, 2007 at 8:07 am

Another debating point could be scored by showing the audience a picture of Hubble Ultra Deep Field - it's the furtherest we've seen in the Universe.
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a/

Once you explain to your audience what it is they're looking at (galaxies not stars), then ask your theist opponent how he can still hold seriously the notion of a personal God.

I've used it a few times with believes and because it's an ACTUAL PHOTO (not just logical arguments), it works well in instilling doubt.

Other Comments by Rtambree

20. Comment #27129 by tieInterceptor on March 23, 2007 at 8:38 am

I agree with alovrin, the Audio is way too painful


its impossible to understand what the hell are they saying... you can hear the cameraman unpacking some chewing gum at the beginning and breathing heavy... if you don't have the knowledge to use the speakers feed, and you got to use the camera microphone, then at least do not put the camera at the back of the auditorium...



anyone's got an mp3 of the main microphone feed?

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

21. Comment #27134 by CF1 on March 23, 2007 at 9:03 am

Indeed.......we put a man on the moon decades ago but we just can't seem to get a decent audio feed from a microphone in a controlled indoor environment.
Couldn't listen to more than a few minutes.

Other Comments by CF1

22. Comment #27136 by Yorker on March 23, 2007 at 9:05 am

When did this happen? I can't believe a thing like this happened on my doorstep and I didn't know about it!

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #27141 by tieInterceptor on March 23, 2007 at 9:14 am

OMG , when McGrath gets to talk suddenly he has a microphone in front of him and the audio goes 100% clear,

theistic saboteur conspiracy!





;)

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

24. Comment #27142 by robives on March 23, 2007 at 9:15 am

I'm constantly amazed at the weakness of Alistair McGrath's argument - he says nothing. Just a lot of wishing and wanting.
Is this guy can't really a professor?

Other Comments by robives

25. Comment #27149 by davyB on March 23, 2007 at 9:40 am

It's too hard for me to understand. Maybe if I spoke English English it would be easier.

Other Comments by davyB

26. Comment #27150 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 9:42 am

Atkins is brilliant, his explanations are always perfectly clear.

Other Comments by Janus

27. Comment #27154 by Logicel on March 23, 2007 at 9:52 am

I, also, gave up listening because of the muffled sound.

Janey, great comment!

Other Comments by Logicel

28. Comment #27157 by ebugogo on March 23, 2007 at 10:02 am

I tried but that audio is just awful. Sorry, I'm sure it was worth a listen.

Other Comments by ebugogo

29. Comment #27162 by tieInterceptor on March 23, 2007 at 10:12 am

I hate the public on this lecture, they clap to everything, even the questions before beeing ganswered,

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

30. Comment #27168 by davyB on March 23, 2007 at 10:37 am

The sound gets better at about 15 minutes.

There's not much in this debate because McGrath's arguments are almost totally vacuuous. He once hinted at the design argument, but mostly he just says he believes because he "thinks it is true," or "it is what's good."

Atkins fumbled when he was asked why simple explanations are generally to be preferred to complicated ones.

Other Comments by davyB

31. Comment #27174 by deeznuts on March 23, 2007 at 10:55 am

I think Atkins questioning of McGrath's presumed atheism was very enlightening. It's impossible to defend religious beliefs, especially if you are a scientist of McGraths caliber, yet, it still goes on. These debates are a waste of time, always the same arguments. How many times can you prove your point and still be ignored?

Other Comments by deeznuts

32. Comment #27175 by Arcturus on March 23, 2007 at 11:10 am

I really liked the debate. (audio was ok, even I could understand what they were saying and I'm not a native english speaker).

The ideea that I went away with, it the fact that "why" questions are nonsense. We shoudl ask "how" questions and not "why".

Way to go Prof. Atkins!

Other Comments by Arcturus

33. Comment #27181 by tieInterceptor on March 23, 2007 at 11:52 am

I think that to a the general public McGrath would appear as having his act together and Atkins was mumbling, and that irritated me,

I usually prefer a clear cut answer as possible to get through to thick people, Dawkins and Harris do a great job at that.

Someone mentioned that McGrath had a rehearsed group of answeres and delivered the ones that where closer to the topic, and I think is totally true, his delivery was very rehearsed and sermon like, as Atkins pointed out, non the less it worked better as a speech.

I would had preferred that Atkins had at least a few simple comebacks on his sleeve, somehow I found myself wishing he was more to the point and sharp, there is plenty of answers for some of McGrath lines, and Atkins felt somehow unsatisfying, and I'm talking of the delivery only,

if you analized whats beeing said, Atkins wins hands down... but it did not feel totally that way, and that is due to the way he aswered.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

34. Comment #27182 by Thrall on March 23, 2007 at 12:04 pm

I think that the fact that McGrath cannot see the benifits of Democracy over Facism shows a lot about his science and his understanding of proof and why he can't see how athiesm is not a belief.

Other Comments by Thrall

35. Comment #27196 by Ricky Ramirez on March 23, 2007 at 1:40 pm

davyB said:

"Atkins fumbled when he was asked why simple explanations are generally to be preferred to complicated ones."

I agree. I didn't watch the whole debate, but this would have been a perfect opportunity to explain Occam's Razor (or parsimony) and its use in the scientific method.

I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods.

Other Comments by Ricky Ramirez

36. Comment #27205 by Jenin on March 23, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Maybe McGrath thinks his ridiculously dramatic gestures and tone of voice cover up the fact he has absolutely nothing to say.

Other Comments by Jenin

37. Comment #27206 by RickM on March 23, 2007 at 2:25 pm

I gave up. The audio was so bad it started to give me a headache.

Other Comments by RickM

38. Comment #27211 by keith on March 23, 2007 at 2:48 pm

Can someone explain this to me?
"I knew just enough astronomy to know that the light from some of those stars wouldn't hit earth for hundreds of years"
How could he be looking at light arriving from stars yet think that it wouldn't arrive until hundreds of years later?

Other Comments by keith

39. Comment #27212 by Planeswalker on March 23, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Interesting... Atkins seems to make some interesting points.

For those of you who complain about the audio: give it a chance. DavyB is right that it gets better.

Other Comments by Planeswalker

40. Comment #27213 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Keith, he probably means that the light that was leaving the stars _at that moment_ would take hundreds of years to reach Earth, i.e. he was seeing those stars as they were hundreds of years ago.

Other Comments by Janus

41. Comment #27214 by CaptainShiny on March 23, 2007 at 3:12 pm

My favorite part:
"We see a world so infinitely complex--"
"So we should just cop out?"

Other Comments by CaptainShiny

42. Comment #27215 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:14 pm

Rickt Ramirez (35)

"I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods."

Hmmm! The problem is that Occam's razor isn't the objective test that many people like to think that it is. Both the theist and the atheist can use it with equal facility and conviction.
For example, in The Blind Watchmaker Richard dawkins argues that although the origin of life by chance is extremely improbable it is made much more probable if we allow for the existence of billions of other planets (or universes) - the argument being that out of all the billions and billions of planets it was bound to happen somewhere. Of course, the theist would have a 'field day' with this since a theory that requires the exuistence of billions and billions of unobservable planets (and universes?) to explain life is clearly at loggerheads with Occam's razor.

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

43. Comment #27217 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:18 pm

Ricky Ramirez

"I love Occam's Razor; it really allows one to "slice" through the nonsensical arguments for the existence of supernatural gods."

The other problem being that William of Occam was a Franciscan Friar[!!!!]

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

44. Comment #27220 by BaronOchs on March 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Interesting thoughts gimli. Is postulating -even infinitely many- other universes as big a leap as postulating a divine being?

Hardly I think. Universes are things we know a little about, thanks to centuries of enquiry. We know they can exist and we know more than a little about how they do so. On the other hand we have no clue as to how an omnipotent-omniscient-eternal-being might exist, and as I have remarked in another post, we cannot in principle understand.

The bottom line is when cosmologists talk about a multiverse or other universe than our own, these are not just speculations but parts of theories than can ultimately offer testable predictions, even if we can't do so at this stage in science. That is more than can be said for any belief in a designer.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

45. Comment #27222 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:27 pm

That billions of planets exist is a fact. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of superfluous entities. Things that we know exist aren't superfluous, by definition.

As for multiple universes, while it's not an entirely stupid argument that they're just as superfluous as God, the multiverse hypothesis has the advantage of actually solving the problem of the universe's initial complexity. It has "explanatory power", as Atkins says. God has none whatsoever.





Other Comments by Janus

46. Comment #27223 by JJoe on March 23, 2007 at 3:31 pm

While I thought Prof. Atkins did a fine job I couldn't help thinking how much I would have preferred seeing Dawkins debate McGrath instead. I think Richard would have surely shredded some of McGrath's silly statements about science.

Particularly McGrath's point about how Darwin might be usurped in 150 years by something else (and I'm paraphrasing his point) and how that somehow was a negative of science. On the contrary, I think that's one of the beauties of the scientific method. It's self-correcting mechanism of further refinement towards a more accurate understanding of the natural world. If something comes along that better explains our rise than evolution, then fine. If it's to be accepted it'll have to withstand rigorous debate and examination.

Can religion make the same claim? Since when did religion ever alter it's explanations of the world except when there was overwhelming social pressure or the rare papal epiphany?

Other Comments by JJoe

47. Comment #27225 by reggiedixon on March 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Good grief - all the moaning about the audio - some of it from someone who seems a little unstable. My ears - no doubt something to do with natural selection - are quite used to a constant audio feed containing lots of conflicting noises. The comment about not understanding English English I assume was a joke.
Great video - plenty of insights into the little dogmatic minds of the fundies.

Other Comments by reggiedixon

48. Comment #27226 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Janus (45)

By "fact" do you mean they've been 'observed'? Or do you mean they must exist otherwise the origin of life by chance would be nonsense?
Prof Dawkins referred to billions and billions of "roughly suitable planets" ie "roughly suitable" for life. Do you claim they've been observed and are scientific fact? If so, where have these discoveries been reported?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin

49. Comment #27230 by Janus on March 23, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Well, planets beyond the solar system have been discovered, yes. According to wikipedia, 215 extrasolar planets have been found so far, with our limited means. It's not much of a stretch to induce that there must be many, many more, since we have a good idea of how many stars there are in the observable universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet

Other Comments by Janus

50. Comment #27231 by gimlibengloin on March 23, 2007 at 3:41 pm

BaronOchs (44)

"Universes are things we know a little about, thanks to centuries of enquiry. We know they can exist and we know more than a little about how they do so. On the other hand we have no clue as to how an omnipotent-omniscient-eternal-being might exist, and as I have remarked in another post, we cannot in principle understand."

What we know is that this universe exists. We have no evidence that any other universe exists and, I might add Carl Sagan said "The cosmos is all that there is and ever was"
In regard to the existence of God there are three possible states of existence: possible, impossible, and neccessary.
So, at least according to logic such a being might exist.

"The bottom line is when cosmologists talk about a multiverse or other universe than our own, these are not just speculations but parts of theories than can ultimately offer testable predictions, even if we can't do so at this stage in science. That is more than can be said for any belief in a designer"

How would we test the existence of another universe outside of our own 3-dimensional space,time,matter continuum even "in principle"?

Other Comments by gimlibengloin