Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: TraditionalistThomas on April 03, 2012, 09:34:27 AM
-
Greetings,
Why have no Catholic apologists debated this man? It seems the only person I can find attempting to take him on is William Lane Craig, a protestant. Does this show a lack of Catholic apologists, or something else?
Thanks,
In Jesus and Mary,
Thomas.
-
A devastating response to the "New" Atheist philistines can be found here:
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333481934&sr=8-1)
Also see this by today's greatest essayist:
What the New Atheists Don't See (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)
-
A devastating response to the "New" Atheist philistines can be found here:
The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism (http://www.amazon.com/The-Last-Superstition-Refutation-Atheism/dp/1587314525/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333481934&sr=8-1)
Thanks!
Also see this by today's greatest essayist:
What the New Atheists Don't See (http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_oh_to_be.html)
Looks very good, but I was surprised that the essayist, Theodore Dalrymple is an atheist himself?
-
Theodore Dalrymple is an atheist himself?
For the time being.
-
I once saw a Catholic debate Chris Hitchens. The defense was so painfully bad, I regret wasting my time in watching it. Truth is, there are very few Catholics competent today to do what the Apostles did in their time, before both Jews and Greeks, no matter their philosophy.
-
I once saw a Catholic debate Chris Hitchens. The defense was so painfully bad, I regret wasting my time in watching it. Truth is, there are very few Catholics competent today to do what the Apostles did in their time, before both Jews and Greeks, no matter their philosophy.
Which one? I agree. I've seen many of these debates with the "New Atheists" on YouTube and the only apologist that came off relatively well was Lane Craig in his debate with Hitchens.
-
I once saw a Catholic debate Chris Hitchens. The defense was so painfully bad, I regret wasting my time in watching it. Truth is, there are very few Catholics competent today to do what the Apostles did in their time, before both Jews and Greeks, no matter their philosophy.
I wonder if our difficulty in debating has to do with so much being a part of Faith? We believe without seeing and although we can get very far with reason, it still has its line in the sand where things turn over to the grace of Faith. It seems like if an opponent doesn't have that, it doesn't matter what is said, they will not hear.
-
Dr. David Allen White, an SSPX Trad, debated Hitchens on radio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4cA10k1XAY
As for Dawkins, his arguments are hidden in all of his scientific sophism and technical jargon. You'd need more of a biologist/ archeologist to refute his evolution based nonsense. His arguments are not so much theological or philosophical like Hitchens were.
Dawkins is a huckster making money off of being a controversial ass and irritating Christians. If you watch the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein you'll see that Dawkins is an empty shell who cloaks his ignorance by citing scientific data, no normal person would ever have time to look up, understand, and refute.
I believe there are a few Christian scientists who have debated him and done well.
In any case, that's why you don't see it too often. His arguments are steeped in evolutionary theory. Most Catholics today believe in evolution. So most Catholics today would be reduced to arguing that God was the author of evolution. Dawkins then asks why they need a "god" if evolution takes care of everything?
Then if you say evolution is crap, he resorts to mockery, name calling, condescension and your typical leftist tactics to try to shame or intimidate the other side into silence.
-
Catholics probably avoid debating Dawkins because he, like many other atheists, isn't the sharpest tool in the shed.
-
Dr. David Allen White, an SSPX Trad, debated Hitchens on radio:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4cA10k1XAY
As for Dawkins, his arguments are hidden in all of his scientific sophism and technical jargon. You'd need more of a biologist/ archeologist to refute his evolution based nonsense. His arguments are not so much theological or philosophical like Hitchens were.
Dawkins is a huckster making money off of being a controversial ass and irritating Christians. If you watch the movie "Expelled" by Ben Stein you'll see that Dawkins is an empty shell who cloaks his ignorance by citing scientific data, no normal person would ever have time to look up, understand, and refute.
I believe there are a few Christian scientists who have debated him and done well.
In any case, that's why you don't see it too often. His arguments are steeped in evolutionary theory. Most Catholics today believe in evolution. So most Catholics today would be reduced to arguing that God was the author of evolution. Dawkins then asks why they need a "god" if evolution takes care of everything?
Then if you say evolution is crap, he resorts to mockery, name calling, condescension and your typical leftist tactics to try to shame or intimidate the other side into silence.
Thanks for that. I went to the link and looked at the comments. It's just amazing so much bigotry can exist.
-
Which one? I agree. I've seen many of these debates with the "New Atheists" on YouTube and the only apologist that came off relatively well was Lane Craig in his debate with Hitchens.
Oh, it was a BBC debate, there was a British MP, I forget her name. There was also an Archbishop and another atheist along with Hitchens. Here's the thing, the audience was polled both before and after the night. In the beginning, it was like 50-50. In the end, something like 90-10% on the side of error. Sad, really.
I wonder if our difficulty in debating has to do with so much being a part of Faith? We believe without seeing and although we can get very far with reason, it still has its line in the sand where things turn over to the grace of Faith. It seems like if an opponent doesn't have that, it doesn't matter what is said, they will not hear.
Sure, but according to the First Vatican Council, God gives certain indubitable signs by which both His existence, and the true Faith are known with certainty by all "in order that the submission of our faith might be in accordance with reason". This is not to say everyone is called to witness to the faith in the same way, far from it, some witness by holiness of life, others move the hand of God by prayer, and the like. But according to St.Thomas, "it is praiseworthy to dispute about the faith in order to confute errors" when there are those who are actively spreading errors, like St.Paul did before the Jews, like the Saints have done before heretics, etc.
-
Which one? I agree. I've seen many of these debates with the "New Atheists" on YouTube and the only apologist that came off relatively well was Lane Craig in his debate with Hitchens.
Oh, it was a BBC debate, there was a British MP, I forget her name. There was also an Archbishop and another atheist along with Hitchens. Here's the thing, the audience was polled both before and after the night. In the beginning, it was like 50-50. In the end, something like 90-10% on the side of error. Sad, really.
.
Yeah I'm not surprised about the poll. These apologists are always Novus Ordo types.
Ironically Dawkins appreciates the beauty of the pre-Vatican II Church. I think it was in the Four Horseman Roundtable talk where he said he thought it was tragic the Church got rid of the Latin Mass and stripped the Churches. Granted he's not a believer, but it begs the question whether he's closer to Catholicism than these Novus Ordo types, since he can at least tell that some vital essence was lost after Vatican II.
-
Which one? I agree. I've seen many of these debates with the "New Atheists" on YouTube and the only apologist that came off relatively well was Lane Craig in his debate with Hitchens.
Oh, it was a BBC debate, there was a British MP, I forget her name. There was also an Archbishop and another atheist along with Hitchens. Here's the thing, the audience was polled both before and after the night. In the beginning, it was like 50-50. In the end, something like 90-10% on the side of error. Sad, really.
Yeah I'm not surprised about the poll. These apologists are always Novus Ordo types and they make the atheists look good even to those not in their corner.
Ironically Dawkins appreciates the beauty of the pre-Vatican II Church. I think it was in the Four Horseman Roundtable talk where he said he thought it was tragic the Church got rid of the Latin Mass and stripped the Churches. Granted he's not a believer, but it begs the question whether he's closer to Catholicism than these Novus Ordo types, since he can at least tell that some vital essence was lost after Vatican II.