John Lennox owning Hitchens ans Dawkins in debates (actual debates)

[Thraxox]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zF5bPI92-5o

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LPBdaz0n094

Where Dawkins actually have balls to debate an actual professor he gets owned and lennox has to educate him the ways if philosophical questions in regards to science. And hitchens meeting his match where he gets front row seat in class of history about Atheism and its poison on society.

Just my favorite debates when John Lennox owned Hitchens and Dawkins. Lol Hitchens never answered Lennox and keeps bringing up assumptions and fallacies.

And dawkins getting owned so hard that Lennox has t educate him

[AlexKid]

Ill believe it when I see it

[Thraxox]

Bump for those who entetain debates.

[Thraxox]

Bump for more info.

[Lomasexual]

Debates can be quite entertaining.

But they are not much good at getting to truths. If you want to understand truth about religion, read the works of Sam Harris, and stop getting entertained by sideshows on youtube.

[Thraxox]

Debates can be quite entertaining.

But they are not much good at getting to truths. If you want to understand truth about religion, read the works of Sam Harris, and stop getting entertained by sideshows on youtube.

Sam Harris? The man who said Genocide is viable as long as it benefits? The reason why I watch debates to see if their points can be defended in the face of constructive criticism in front of thousands of people.

Why watch the one sided point of view of Sam Harris towards religion when he himself is an atheist? Of course you would see his view as aligned to logic because his point of view is similar to yours. But there would be confirmation bias in each of those points and premises be it an atheist or a theist. That is why I watch debates over one sided breakdown on why atheism is evil or why religion is evil, to see how they will defend from constructive criticism in front of thousands of people.

And also, there can never be objective truths as long as their is humanity because opposing viewpoints will always be on the way to see what is truth and what is a lie.

You would have to decide on these debates to see in your own opinion who formulated the better premise and from there you would search for the things you deemed to be the truth.

[Lomasexual]

Sam Harris? The man who said Genocide is viable as long as it benefits? The reason why I watch debates to see if their points can be defended in the face of constructive criticism in front of thousands of people.

Why watch the one sided point of view of Sam Harris towards religion when he himself is an atheist? Of course you would see his view as aligned to logic because his point of view is similar to yours. But there would be confirmation bias in each of those points and premises be it an atheist or a theist. That is why I watch debates over one sided breakdown on why atheism is evil or why religion is evil, to see how they will defend from constructive criticism in front of thousands of people.

And also, there can never be objective truths as long as their is humanity because opposing viewpoints will always be on the way to see what is truth and what is a lie.

You would have to decide on these debates to see in your own opinion who formulated the better premise and from there you would search for the things you deemed to be the truth.

Debates are just entertainment.

A proper deconstruction of the premises of an argument is best done in writing and is usually long and thorough.

You just have to look at people like Duane Gish to realise how meaningless debates are.