Religious Scholars debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sagefrakrobatik
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sagefrakrobatik

Guest
Which religious scholars would you like to see debate each other? Here are a list of religious thinkers I would love to see debate each other:

Tovia Singer-Jewish

Zaid Shakir _Muslim

Ravi Zachrias-Christian

Lee Strobel-Christian

Deepak Chopra-Hindu/Buddhist

Aleister McGrawth?? cant think of the name.

Feel free to add to the list. Any religion
 
Christopher Hitchens for the other side. Being a reporter and not a scholar he wins easily because he can speak common and not academic language
 
Sagefrakrobatik said:
Which religious scholars would you like to see debate each other? Here are a list of religious thinkers I would love to see debate each other:

Tovia Singer-Jewish

Zaid Shakir _Muslim

Ravi Zachrias-Christian

Lee Strobel-Christian

Deepak Chopra-Hindu/Buddhist

Aleister McGrawth?? cant think of the name.

Feel free to add to the list. Any religion
Click to expand...
Patrick Madrid VS Benny Hinn
 
Pat Robertson Vs. Freud (staunch Jewish atheist, yet killed himself on the day of atonement).
 
4Squarebaby said:
Christopher Hitchens for the other side. Being a reporter and not a scholar he wins easily because he can speak common and not academic language
Click to expand...
I’ve heard Mr HItchens debate. His arguments are shallow and he’s vulgar.
 
survive said:
That’s so sad. I hadn’t known or had forgot that.
Click to expand...
It was doctor assisted suicide. He had been fighting mouth and/or throat cancer for along time, so it wasn’t really all that bad. Not at all like Lawrence Kohlberg… he did it by jumping into Boston harbor. Quite simply hardcore. This moment in the history of mentally unstable Jewish Psychologists brought to you by Hosh.
 
Michael L. Brown VS Tovia Singer

Mike would (has in past) wipe the floor with this guy.
 
I would like to see any competent individual debate Richard Dawkins. Dawkins refuses to debate anyone he considers a “creationist,” because that designation by itself defines that person as unqualified to debate. He has a quip in The God Delusion where he says to a creationist that a debate with himself “would look much better on your CV than on mine.” In the meantime, Dawkins publishes such puerile argumentation that any undergrad in a decent theology program could destroy him. I have found a few debates by him and other scientists, which is way better than nothing> Yet I don’t think that his opponents in the hard sciences have shown the level of theological skill that would enable them to push their arguments aggressively enough to crush him properly.
 
soren1 said:
I would like to see any competent individual debate Richard Dawkins. Dawkins refuses to debate anyone he considers a “creationist,” because that designation by itself defines that person as unqualified to debate. He has a quip in The God Delusion where he says to a creationist that a debate with himself “would look much better on your CV than on mine.” In the meantime, Dawkins publishes such puerile argumentation that any undergrad in a decent theology program could destroy him. I have found a few debates by him and other scientists, which is way better than nothing> Yet I don’t think that his opponents in the hard sciences have shown the level of theological skill that would enable them to push their arguments aggressively enough to crush him properly.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry as I am of simple mind in this moment but classical creationsim defies logic, and any argument of such does seem rather redundant, unless one brings new light to the subject.
 
Mansur al-Hallaj (Sufi Muslim crucified for heresy) vs. Hunayn Ibn Ishaq (8th century Assyrian physician and translator who wrote the treatise “On How to Discern the Truth of Religion”) - I think this would be interesting because one of the ideas that got al-Hallaj in so much trouble was his meditation on being “the truth” in his efforts to be one with God (a sort of Islamic theosis, i guess). It would be interesting to contrast the Sufi "heretic"s version of what that means with the great physician’s ideas about what is “true” with regard to religion. When al-Hallaj was crucified, it was after a long trial in which he was apparently accused of “Christianizing” Islam with his apparently too-close-to-the-Incarnation style of approaching Sufi mysticism.
 
Moses Vs. Muhammad Vs. Jesus Vs. Brahman Vs. Einstein Vs. Buddha Vs. Raven God :

ULTIMATE DEATHMATCH!..No rules, LETS GET IT ON!!!

Wait… lets through a hippopotamus in the cage to make it interesting.
 
Michael Martin vs Craig, Plantinga or Geisler

Basically, I always wanted to see the prominent atheist Martin debate a Christian well-versed in atheistic principles and who believes that the existence of God is demonstrable.

Richard Dawkins vs Michael Behe

Resolved: neo-Darwinism is a sufficient theory to account for all aspects of evolution, including at the molecular level

Two scientists, specialists in their fields and who have thought at length on the adequacy of neo-Darwinism, debating a scientific topic

St Thomas Aquinas vs Bl John Duns Scotus

on any topic…who could resist seeing these two intellectual mammoths going at it?
 
I forgot about the atheist. You mine as well trhough Sam Harris in there as well. I wonder what a Debate between and Atheist and Agnostic would look like?

I forgot to mention Stephen Knapp He is a Vedic scholar converted to Hinduism.

Also Ahmed Deedat. I heard he debate a Christian Evangelist by blinking his eyes to communicate because he had some medical condition that left him paralyzed.
 
I don’t think I’d be Tivo ing any of those debates (Well, maybe the one with Jesus aned Moses, if it were subtitled).
 
I have never, in my whole time at CAF, seen a hippo introduced so early in a thread into a topic with which there is absolutely no bearing…😃 O.K. I’m prepared for anything now.

Umm there is always the famous Father Coplestone (Catholic) vs. agnostic Bertrand Russel debate of 1948. It is quite interesting to hear Russell attempt to explain why a Nazi concentration camp should be bad in an agnostic/atheist perspective.
bringyou.to/apologetics/p20.htm

The poster anevilatheist once gave me the link to this debate between William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins. It’s in 11 parts but it is moderated by the late Bill Buckley which kind of makes the rules slightly frayed but IMHO Peter Atkins comes off terribly nervous and out of his element as a debater. The thing for a Christian apologist I suppose is that many argue for Christ on top of simply arguing for God. I watched the whole debate on youtube when I had some time to kill. youtube.com/watch?v=9qT1pp_jCUw

On a Christian/Jewish debate I suppose one could have one in these times but it would just be too redolent of Nahmanides being drawn into the King of Aragon’s Court in Barcelona to argue with the Dominicans (some say he won) in 1263. History.

In speaking of Spinoza, I would rather have Spinoza go up against Maimonides. But with which proposition would they start? It is interesting that the philo-Semitic Catholic Paul Johnson in his History of the Jews, after covering thousands of years of history, ends his epilogue of Jewish history with this quip covering Spinoza: “In the ultimate perspective of history, Abraham and Moses may come to seem less important than Spinoza [beginning the process of rationalizing God out of existence].” I strongly disagree with that assessment. I cannot see why it would make sense to Johnson as a devout Catholic. 🤷

Anyway, I am not too aware of other denominations engaged in debating. I guess it’s hard to come by this stuff since the heyday of debating back in the early 60s (Buckley vs. Norman Mailer, Vidal) before I was born. It would be nice if debating made a comeback.

Now back to the hippos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top