Fundamentalist Atheists

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes, Williams has a nice resonant voice. Dawkins sounds a bit prissy, and Kenny sounds a bit reedy. I would say that Dawkins was not the greatest thinker of the three, but I actually believe that he was. I guess we just have different perceptions on how well they did.

Actually I think Kenny won.

 

[Copernicus]

Actually I think Kenny won.

Oh, that doesn't speak well for the Christian. But I must say that I enjoyed the debate. It was fun to get the different perspectives from three individuals who had given a lot of thought to the subject.

ETA: I just watched the whole thing again to refresh my memory, and I was still very pleasantly impressed by all three men. It probably shouldn't be termed a debate, but more of a thoughtful discussion among highly intellectual people in a friendly atmosphere. There were no real polemics, and the disagreements were done in a spirit of mutual respect. This is the way people should address such issues. IMO, none of the three discussants "won" the debate. The real winner was the audience.

 

[Breathe]

It probably shouldn't be termed a debate, but more of a thoughtful discussion among highly intellectual people in a friendly atmosphere. There were no real polemics, and the disagreements were done in a spirit of mutual respect. This is the way people should address such issues. IMO, none of the three discussants "won" the debate. The real winner was the audience.

That makes it much more interesting to me.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Oh, that doesn't speak well for the Christian. But I must say that I enjoyed the debate. It was fun to get the different perspectives from three individuals who had given a lot of thought to the subject.

ETA: I just watched the whole thing again to refresh my memory, and I was still very pleasantly impressed by all three men. It probably shouldn't be termed a debate, but more of a thoughtful discussion among highly intellectual people in a friendly atmosphere. There were no real polemics, and the disagreements were done in a spirit of mutual respect. This is the way people should address such issues. IMO, none of the three discussants "won" the debate. The real winner was the audience.

Way I see it. Williams is a poet, Dawkins is a scientist and of course Kenny is a metaphysician. What we witness was a discussion between an artist, a scientist and a really damn good philosopher of language. Kenny won it because he defined it, he knew how to ask questions and challenge both.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, Kenny was the designated moderator, so he wasn't supposed to really be a participant in the conversation. He did make it an interesting conversation at times. At other times, he sounded a bit irrelevant and off-topic. Had he just kept to his role as moderator, we could have heard more of what the archbishop had to say, which was what interested me most. I knew basically what Dawkins' positions would be. I was more impressed by Williams than I thought I would be, and I wanted to hear more of his thoughts on the subject. That's not because I agreed with where he was going. I just thought that he was one of the more articulate and thoughtful theologians that I've come across. He was clearly struggling to fit modern cosmology in with his theological views.

 

[Uberpod]

I started watching that particular debate and started to doze off. I then saw another one with Harris, Hitchens and two Jewish guys and I watched the whole thing.