The Prof. Craig-Mr. Hitchens Debate, 8.4 MN views. Who iyo won and why?

[Szuchow]

The whole reason to come to an atheist forum is to screw around with people.  To cause chaos.  Otherwise, why not go to a Christian forum and support those who believe in the crap he's trying to sell?  He's not trying to save us.  He's trying to make himself look good in that..."but I tried to turn these poor heathens to the word of god because I'm so frigging "Christian," but it didn't work.  But at least I get kudos for trying and I'm making sure I'm in line for those golden wings when I kick off.  Cause godboy Luvs me!"

Whole reason for trolls to come here is to troll in other words. It's not like he was interested in anything else.

[Szuchow]

I’ve been on religious forums for years.  I’ve seen a few Christian’s lose their faith but I’ve never seen an atheist become a believer.  I’m sure it has happened once somewhere but I think a lot of Christian’s seek out religious forums to hold on to a dwindling faith and then go to an atheist forum before they get completely lost to their Christian belief…and they find out we’re right!  Those are often the looky loos that never post or rarely.  

Funny thing is, once they jump to the dark side, their former religious forums ban them if they find out.  Keep it up Christian’s!  Once they see how their former friends treat them, they’ll never go back.

I have a long-held theory that most of the "Oh so and so was an atheist and then became a believer!" (therefore you should pay attention to their opinion) are fake.  I think what's really happening is something like Cultural Christian moves into realm of agnosticism but not with serious thought and then for personal reasons boom Hard Shift to Fundamentalism.

If you're a real atheist, you ain't going back unless God himself comes a'knockin and even then you're going to be asking questions.

God Lenin in heaven we agree again. Atheist saying that he is believer now most likely want to sell something or is simply a troll (there have been at least one case of such here). Or is running for public office in religious country.

[mordant]

I’ve found that most Christian “conversions” are one branch stealing from another.  I also think that any atheists that go to religion are likely in some crisis and think this may work.  Religions love to grab the down and out.  Stable atheists are pretty immune.

The other sort of atheist that converts to theism is what I call the "unconsidered atheist", which is the occasional person who grows up in an areligious household, knows little or nothing about religion, is incurious about it, then either encounters it as a novel new concept they hadn't considered before, or it provides some kindness or refuge or support they need at that moment in their lives, etc. Or, their atheism was a brief rebellious phase that cost them too much socially. I have heard testimonies of supposed former atheists like this, often with the atheism described in ways that imply it was way more considered than it was -- it makes a more impressive testimony.

There's a former atheist on the other forum where I participate who is now a panentheist with some weird desire to shoehorn the Christian belief system into it. He's a retired college professor who got into meditation, had some sort of experience of non-duality that he interprets as an encounter with Jesus, but the beliefs resulting from that mash-up leaves him on the outs with the vast majority of Christians on the site as well. He's a stereotypical insufferable pompous academic who takes himself and his ideas way too seriously, confusing his tenure and academic standing with intellectual rigor.

Finally there are a handful of atheists who become agnostics (because there must be "something more") later in life and ignorant fundagelicals try to make hay from this in the same way they try to claim that the US was "founded on Christian principles" -- by deists whose theology, such as it is, they would be deeply uncomfortable with.

[Dānu]

I’ve been on religious forums for years.  I’ve seen a few Christian’s lose their faith but I’ve never seen an atheist become a believer.  I’m sure it has happened once somewhere but I think a lot of Christian’s seek out religious forums to hold on to a dwindling faith and then go to an atheist forum before they get completely lost to their Christian belief…and they find out we’re right!  Those are often the looky loos that never post or rarely.  

Funny thing is, once they jump to the dark side, their former religious forums ban them if they find out.  Keep it up Christian’s!  Once they see how their former friends treat them, they’ll never go back.

I have a long-held theory that most of the "Oh so and so was an atheist and then became a believer!" (therefore you should pay attention to their opinion) are fake.  I think what's really happening is something like Cultural Christian moves into realm of agnosticism but not with serious thought and then for personal reasons boom Hard Shift to Fundamentalism.

If you're a real atheist, you ain't going back unless God himself comes a'knockin and even then you're going to be asking questions.

I'm sure there are atheists who never gave their atheism much thought just as there are theists in a similar position. It wouldn't take much to reorient them.

[Rhythmcs]

As one of those atheists who never gave it much thought, I doubt that this is the reason for such reorientations or that it's easy to do.

Most of the time, when we hear the "I was an atheist" spiel...the person is using the language of their new religious community to describe how they...errantly, belonged to the wrong one beforehand. Believing in the wrong god and not believing in God are conceptually equivalent, in that view. They'll say things like "I didn't know about this stuff, I didn't come from a faithful family" - but a cursory examination of their actual life will show that they did, in fact, come from a believing family. Often from a churchgoing family. Just a believing and churchgoing family that was far less insufferable than their current cult-mates, is all.

[SYZ]

Xavier is a spammy idiot.  That doesn't appear to be strictly against the rules, much as we might wish otherwise.

2) No spam:
Posting links to other websites in order to promote people, products, or ideas when
not part of related discussions may be regarded as spam.  Repeatedly posting the
same material may also be regarded as engaging in spamming the forum.

[SYZ]

As one of those atheists who never gave it much thought, I doubt that this is the reason for such reorientations or that it's easy to do.  

Most of the time, when we hear the "I was an atheist" spiel...the person is using the language of their new religious community to describe how they...errantly, belonged to the wrong one beforehand.  Believing in the wrong god and not believing in God are conceptually equivalent, in that view.  They'll say things like "I didn't know about this stuff, I didn't come from a faithful family" - but a cursory examination of their actual life will show that they did, in fact, come from a believing family.  Often from a churchgoing family.  Just a believing and churchgoing family that was far less insufferable than their current cult-mates, is all.

This is a list of notable converts to Christianity who were not
theists before their conversion. All names should be sourced
and the source should indicate they had not been a theist, not
merely non-churchgoing, before conversion.

[Rhythmcs]

...and?

[Rhythmcs]

Meh, whatever, I'm running with it. I can only assume that there's supposed to be some relationship between my observation and your list. So let's take a look at the first item. Joy Davidman and CS Lewis. A twofer, since he was her husband and he appears later in the list. I don't think that either one fits the new fundamentalist "I was an atheist like you until I heard this". If we had cs lewis-s and joy davidman-s coming here with that I would consider it an improvement. I do think that they both provide wonderful examples of the conclusion I come to.

Lewis in that he was baptized and raised in a faith that he, in his own words, fell away from. Bluntly, his inclusion seems to be playing fast and loose for numbers, as he didn't convert, he returned to the well from which he sprang. He was, famously, not a person who never gave god much thought, either. Now, Joy Davidman might actually fit the latter. Just as we would find it unremarkable that a christian from a christian family didn't spend too much time questioning or thinking about their christianity...we mightsuspect that Davidman, from a publicly atheist family, never gave it much thought herself. She was regarded as something of a genius, however, she did not come to belief because she heard an argument..or easily. In her own words, she had a mystical experience that made her the most surprised atheist on earth.

[SYZ]

Meh, whatever, I'm running with it.  I can only assume that there's supposed to be some relationship between my observation and your list...

Nah mate... I posted it as nothing more than an
interesting observation that there are (were) a
lot of well known, intelligent people out there
who jumped the atheist ship.

[mordant]

Meh, whatever, I'm running with it.  I can only assume that there's supposed to be some relationship between my observation and your list.  So let's take a look at the first item.  Joy Davidman and CS Lewis.  A twofer, since he was her husband and he appears later in the list.  I don't think that either one fits the new fundamentalist "I was an atheist like you until I heard this".  If we had cs lewis-s and joy davidman-s coming here with that I would consider it an improvement.  I do think that they both provide wonderful examples of the conclusion I come to.  

Lewis in that he was baptized and raised in a faith that he, in his own words, fell away from.  Bluntly, his inclusion seems to be playing fast and loose for numbers, as he didn't convert, he returned to the well from which he sprang.  He was, famously, not a person who never gave god much thought, either.  Now, Joy Davidman might actually fit the latter.  Just as we would find it unremarkable that a christian from a christian family didn't spend too much time questioning or thinking about their christianity...we mightsuspect that Davidman, from a publicly atheist family, never gave it much thought herself.  She was regarded as something of a genius, however, she did not come to belief because she heard an argument..or easily.  In her own words, she had a mystical experience that made her the most surprised atheist on earth.

Lewis' own account of his re-conversion during a lengthy walk / discussion with Tolkien demonstrates that the old memes and tropes were tugging at him, and Tolkien didn't have to work very hard to put him over the top.

I knew the gravitational pull of such things myself, which is why I made damned certain I had carefully thought all that stuff through and gotten down to what my fundamental issues with them were, and even surveyed other denominations and faiths to see if any of those might at least provisionally address those concerns. It was only when they all failed the test that I proceeded with my deconversion. And that gravity field was gone, lo and behold.

Lewis never really identified the false basis for his theism. As evidenced by the arguments he ended up mounting in his later writings, not least, the "liar, lunatic or son of god" false trichotomy. He was either a sloppy thinker or was mounting dishonest arguments. I know one isn't supposed to say that of a self-proclaimed intellectual who happens to write well and has lots of successful publishing credits, but -- there, I said it anyway.

[Rhythmcs]

The basis for his atheism, or whatever passed for atheism to him, was nothing to do with gods or arguments either, according to him. He laid whatever that was at the feet of war, the loss of his mother, and unhappiness at school. I think that as lewis is employed by fundies we tend to miss the context of his advocacy for mere christianity. It wasn't so much to convince atheists that there was a god as to convince christians to stop killing each other over their novel variations of the same. Mostly because they're not interested in that shit anymore. Mere christianity is no longer a tool of peace but a bludgeon in their global lurch towards right wing political christianism. They only need a packed house until they recapture governments, and then they'll get back to slaughtering each other, as all the lurchiest subsects blame each other for christianity's precipitous decline in the west.

[jerry mcmasters]

I have a long-held theory that most of the "Oh so and so was an atheist and then became a believer!" (therefore you should pay attention to their opinion) are fake.  I think what's really happening is something like Cultural Christian moves into realm of agnosticism but not with serious thought and then for personal reasons boom Hard Shift to Fundamentalism.

If you're a real atheist, you ain't going back unless God himself comes a'knockin and even then you're going to be asking questions.

God Lenin in heaven we agree again.

Yeah but...this is the atheist forum.  Such lightening rarely strikes over in Politics lol.

[jerry mcmasters]

I have a long-held theory that most of the "Oh so and so was an atheist and then became a believer!" (therefore you should pay attention to their opinion) are fake.  I think what's really happening is something like Cultural Christian moves into realm of agnosticism but not with serious thought and then for personal reasons boom Hard Shift to Fundamentalism.

If you're a real atheist, you ain't going back unless God himself comes a'knockin and even then you're going to be asking questions.

I'm sure there are atheists who never gave their atheism much thought just as there are theists in a similar position.  It wouldn't take much to reorient them.

Agreed my caveat to atheist not becoming theist would be there needs to be at least a little deep thought.  Not much, but some.  No doubt there are cultural atheists just as there are cultural theists, and it is a "belief" with very shallow depth and lot of emotionalism.  Hell, it's natural for teens to rebel against whatever their parents are pushing if they are pushing too hard, and we all know atheists can be pretty pushy and annoying.  What I can't conceive of, and maybe this is a failure of imagination, is someone who arrives at atheism honestly through actually thinking deeply about it, and then later decides Catholicism, or whatever form of theism, makes more logical sense.  Including C S fucking Lewis.

[Rhythmcs]

I can see it, so long as we leave a little daylight between honesty and accuracy. I know that people can be genuinely mistaken. I think we're all familiar.

Theism doesn't have to be batshit. Those guys really put in the work. To some extent, I think that because so much of theism is so batshit people can very easily genuinely believe that they're on to something just by getting rid of the most obvious examples of that as they see it.

[jerry mcmasters]

I can see it, so long as we leave a little daylight between honesty and accuracy.  I know that people can be genuinely mistaken.  I think we're all familiar.

Theism doesn't have to be batshit.  Those guys really put in the work.  To some extent, I think that because so much of theism is so batshit people can very easily genuinely believe that they're on to something just by getting rid of the most obvious examples of that as they see it.

I guess I'm just biased by my personal experience, to me it would be like moving from 1 plus 1 equals 2 to 1 plus 1 equals tangerine.  Particular religious tenets, in Christianity for example, are batshit!  I suppose I can buy smart people moving from atheism to a fuzzy agnosticism or deism, but to move from atheism to thinking there really was a God-sent man who died to redeems sins and resurrected etc., it seems it really must be a case of not taking the original atheism seriously or deeply.  (Unless, as as the caveat several have mentioned, it is merely a cultural or social or political movement with no thinking needed)

[pattylt]

We’re all atheist in my immediate family. My daughter did go through a period of thinking maybe there was something out there and knowing I was raised Jewish, she explored that a bit. But, eventually, even though she like liberal Judaism, she eventually wrote that off as well. The Jesus story she found completely ridiculous. We discussed Christianity in its most general flavors and, like most Jews and atheists, just didn’t buy it at all. My son never even look at religion even though one of best friends is very Christian and tried at some point to convert him. My son gave him the choice of never talking about religion or ending the friendship. The friend never mentioned religion to him again and they’re still good buddies.

I firmly believe that if you haven’t been saturated in some religion by parents or friends, it’s not likely to be something you one day decide is the Truth. There’s some priming of the pump that had to be there first.

[Rhythmcs]

Atheism isn't...and by some lights cannot be a cultural or social or political movement. It doesn't tell us anything about what people believe that binds them. We're not bound to people who don't believe in allah because we don't believe in vishnu and they are not bound to us because we don't believe in christ. We're not moving anywhere together on the basis of whatever stuff any of our little groups and subgroups doesn't believe.

I'd tell you that the reason atheism, at it's base, doesn't need any "thinking" is because it's not entirely unlike having a taste for a particular ice cream. I spend as much time wondering why I'm not a god botherer as I spend wondering why I don't like fish flavored ice cream. It's just a description of a state of being. We either believe or we don't. I respect that for people who do have a deconversion experience it seems like they did more than this. That they often remember it another way. It's very difficult to have a conversation about that with former believers because, at the bottom of it all, I do think that they've rationalized - that they've narrativized. I'd call the end of faith the very moment...the very instant, you question it. As questions and faith are antithetical on their face as a matter of genuinely held belief. I think that people stop believing before they know why they do. Before they learned this or that argument that they may later describe as consequential.

Deconverts were atheists before they themselves knew that they were, or why, if they ever learn why. Likewise, converts were believers before they realized as much, and we can credibly question whether the reasons they offer for those new beliefs were causal, or post ad rationalizations and convenient narrativization.

[Dānu]

I firmly believe that if you haven’t been saturated in some religion by parents or friends, it’s not likely to be something you one day decide is the Truth.  There’s some priming of the pump that had to be there first.

Maybe. I was raised Presbyterian, but by my teens had lost my faith for reasons that I know not. At 17 I read the Tao Te Ching and became an instant convert to Taoism. I my 20s I learned about the goddess Kali and over time became a convert. A few years back I became an atheist, though I never explicitly rejected Taoism. Now I'm become friendly towards Hinduism again, but a Hinduism without gods. I suppose one could say that the early magical thinking primed my pump for later religious inclinations, but it's just as likely that it did not, and religion simply appeals to my somewhat contemplative nature.

[Vorpal]

I actually think Hitchens won. He didn't counter each point as directly as one might. He did address them obliquely. Craig did no better against Hitchens points. And, Hitchens lacked the home court advantage.
.

[SYZ]

Following a 2011 debate with Craig, Lawrence Krauss
stated that Craig had a "simplistic view of the world"
and that in the debate Craig had said "disingenuous
distortions, simplifications, and outright lies"

And in 2021, Academic Influence ranked Craig the
nineteenth most influential philosopher in the world
over the previous three decades (1990-2020) and the
world's fourth most influential theologian over the
same period.

 —Personally, I think Academic Influence got that wrong on both counts.    

[SYZ]

I actually think Hitchens won. He didn't counter each point as directly as one might. He did address them obliquely. Craig did no better against Hitchens points.  And, Hitchens lacked the home court advantage.

Yes.  The debate was held at Biola University, an
evangelical Christian university in La Mirada, CA,
which was founded in 1908 as the Bible Institute
Of Los Angeles.     So hardly "neutral" territory.

[Dexta]

I actually think Hitchens won. 
.

Me too. Watched the whole thing. 

[Minimalist]

Craig asserts fantasy as fact in front of a crowd of idiots who already agree because they have been brain-washed since birth.

I don't know why Hitchens even bothered.  I suppose it didn't hurt his book sales.