The Atheist Blogger » debate

Open Letter to the Student’s Union

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:38:30 +0000

The following is an email I sent to the Student’s Union at Royal Holloway after they made the grave error (in my opinion) of banning the Christian Union from holding their faith week after an incident at one of their lunchtime talks. Comments, opinions, and disagreements are all welcome.

To Whom It May Concern,

I was absolutely astounded at the decision of the Student’s Union to cancel the lunchtime bookings made by the Christian Union at Royal Holloway. Before I continue, let it be known that I am not a Christian, nor do I support the views held by the Christian Union in the slightest. I am the president of the Royal Holloway Secular Students group on campus, and despite our differences we have had a positive relationship with the Christian Union during the last 3 years. This relationship has enabled us to have several engaging debates on issues such as religion and the existence of God. It was at one of these debates (“Can we know God?”) last night that I was informed by a member of the Christian Union about the SU’s aforementioned decision.

I am writing to you to express my outrage and utter disbelief over this decision, which I believe was made without proper consideration or rationalisation. Firstly, the email that was sent to cancel these events and offer the refund of the fees paid was undeniably vague, alluding to something “wholly inappropriate” that had apparently caused “controversy” at the lunch event on Tuesday 9th February. I later learned (from an unverified source, so please correct me if this is wrong) that this controversial, inappropriate idea was that God had caused the Asian tsunami as some sort of punishment^[1].

If this is indeed the cause of the controversy, I can completely understand why. Such an idea is not only irrational, but blatantly disrespectful of the people, and families of people lost in that terrible tragedy. You may wonder then, why I am so against your decision. It is because, as a rationalist and sceptic, I cannot abide censorship of any form. All ideas, especially the controversial ones, are valid for discussion. Our entire modern culture, science, and political system is built on radical inappropriate ideas being discussed openly without fear. The strength of the ideology of free speech is that anyone can have an opinion, no-matter how absurd or offensive, because at the end of the day, those on the opposition have the same freedom to refute the absurdities.

It is unbelievable that at a university, a place where the very discussion of ideas forms part of the purpose of the institution, censorship of an idea can take place under the guise of “not being suitable” as you stated in your email. By disallowing the presentation of an idea, the Student’s Union has issued a statement; that it has the control over what students can think, what we can discuss in public, what ideas are “correct” and which are not. If anything is inappropriate here, it is the use of political correctness at an institution where the search for truth, whatever that truth might be, should be held as the highest form of being. I ask you, what is the purpose of our education if we cannot question what we are taught, challenge ideas where we see fit, and discuss the alternative possibilities openly?

I plead you to see reason, and let the Christian Union continue to host talks, preach, and cause controversy. Controversy feeds the mind; it allows us to think about new ideas, to explore them, and to refute them. Causing controversy is a right protected by the freedom of speech; getting offended by such controversy and using that offence to censor ideas, is not. By all means, be offended, shout, scream with a fiery passion, but for the sake of the freedoms which we hold dear, do not stoop to the level of censoring ideas! As I have previously stated, there isn’t much agreement to be had between my society and the Christian Union, yet I respect their right to have the opinions they do, as long as they respect my right to disagree with them. We debate them annually to share our views with those who might not have heard them before, to challenge notions that may be held dear, and to make known our disagreement in an intellectual forum.

I have sent a copy of this email to my friends, to members of the Royal Holloway Secular Students, and to members of the Christian Union. I will give them instructions to forward it to you if they support the freedom of speech and the discussion of ideas as much as I do. I hope this will make you see the irrationality behind your decision. If not, and if the Christian Union are still prohibited from speaking at the end of the week, I am quite prepared to send this letter to the Founder^[2], the NUS^[3], and as many media organisations connected to students as possible. I honestly hope it does not come to that, but if it must, it must.

-Adrian

Our debate last night went extremely well, with both speakers for the atheist / agnostic side presenting clear arguments and defending criticism from the audience. It helps when one of them is a PhD student in evolutionary psychology though.

This was confirmed by a member of the Christian Union I spoke with today. ↩
Our non-union student supported newspaper. ↩
National Union of Students ↩

Possibly Related Posts:

Intelligence Squared to be Broadcast Live!

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:00:02 +0000

Missing out on the Intelligence Squared debate featuring Richard Dawkins & A C Grayling vs. Richard Harries and Charles Moore? Whether you couldn’t get tickets, couldn’t travel down, or just don’t live in England, you are in for some luck!

In a special partnership with livestation.com, Intelligence Squared are going to be streaming the event live from 18:45 GMT on Sunday 29th November. Not only that, but you can vote online and ask questions to the panel through Twitter!

Anybody, anywhere will be able to view the debate in real time and participate in a live online discussion through their Twitter profile. Just like those actually at the event, the online audience will be able to vote both before and after the debate, and direct questions to the panel. – @intelligence2

If you want to get involved through Twitter, whether through voting, asking a question, or just discussing it with fellow viewers, make sure to hashtag your tweets with #iq2atheism.

The event will be streamed from the following web address: http://www.intelligencesquared.com/live, so bookmark it and join in! I’m hopefully going to be meeting a load of fellow atheist bloggers, tweeters, and members of my atheist forums (look out for our cool t-shirts) at the event, and anyone is welcome to come join us for drinks before and after at The Iron Duke pub. If you need to contact me, my number is: 07828 698967 (or send me a tweet!).

I’ll have my cameras there for photos and video purposes (video mainly for the first “official” atheistforums.org meetup) and I’ll post everything on the blog as soon as I am physically able (i.e. sober).

Hope to see you there!

Possibly Related Posts:

Intelligence Squared – Is Atheism the New Fundamentalism?

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 22:35:51 +0000

For anyone living in England, there is a promising debate coming up at Wellington College, Crowthorne, Berkshire on the 29th November. Richard Dawkins and A C Grayling will be debating “Is atheism the new fundamentalism?” with Richard Harries (former Bishop of Oxford) and Charles Moore (former editor of the Daily Telegraph and The Spectator). The debate costs £15 to get into, and starts at 7pm.

If you are interested, you can buy tickets from the Intelligence Squared website.

I’m going with a few friends and members of AtheistForums.org (one of whom is coming from the Netherlands). We are all meeting at The Iron Duke pub at 5:30pm for drinks, and then there again after the debate for more! If anyone wants to meet there, please do! My contact number for the day is: 07828 698967.

I don’t know what the turnout for the debate will be, but if the online poll is anything to go by, there will be plenty of atheists and secularists present. I’ll be taking photos and blogging about the event for anyone who can’t attend, although I hope to see you there if you can make it.

Possibly Related Posts:

Thunderf00t vs. Ray Comfort

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:00:30 +0000

Earlier this month, Ray Comfort agreed (well, the second time) to a discussion with Thunderf00t. The rules were simple: the two men, one room, and one camera. Any questions were on the floor for discussion, and each man would get a copy of the video to use as they wished. As it turned out, Ray Comfort had a separate cameraman (for higher quality video I guess) in the room, but overall the debate was as stipulated.

Thunderf00t has uploaded the entire discussion, uncut from start to finish, and if you have a spare 90 or so minutes, I advise you watch it all! Ray Comfort’s points are torn apart in front of him one by one, as Thunderf00t explores the deeper meaning of Ray’s arguments (evidently not done by Ray himself) such as the “how do you know it is creation?” rebuttal to any claim of the kind “creation needs a creator” in reference to the universe itself.

Here is the entire debate as a YouTube playlist, so sit back and watch the Bananaman get defeated by common sense and logic, as played by Thunderf00t.

Enjoy!

Possibly Related Posts:

Ray Comfort is Still a Coward…

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:00:34 +0000

…but at least Thunderf00t will get his discussion.

Yes, it’s (kinda) official now. Ray Comfort phoned up Thunderf00t and accepted his proposal for a discussion. This can only be good news, as it means we actually get to see Ray try to make up some arguments without appealing to emotion. It will be one room, with only a camera and the two men.

Of course, what Comfort did originally (attempting to get Thunderf00t to pay the fee for Richard Dawkins) is utterly reprehensible; it was a cowardly attempt to use Thunderf00t (who was the person offering the discussion in the first place) to get a debate with Richard Dawkins.

So maybe Ray is slightly less cowardly now, but to be honest, knowing Ray, I have my doubts. I predict he will still try to pull someone on this one. Whether it involves having an actual audience (so he can use appeals to emotion) or just being dishonest concerning the actual discussion plan. I hope he doesn’t, but over a year of reading Ray Comfort’s blog has left me with a distinct level of distrust surrounding the man; everything he does seems to have an ulterior motive.

Possibly Related Posts:

Ray Comfort is a Coward

Adrian Hayter — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:22:58 +0000

A few months back, Ray Comfort asked Richard Dawkins to debate with him. Dawkins agreed, but requested a $100,000 donation to his foundation for reason and science (the standard rate he requests), and that the debate would be recorded. Ray offered $20,000 instead, and Dawkins refused. Ray could have left it at that, saying he was not able to pay anything higher, but instead he released a video with a futile attempt to mock Dawkins over a quotemined section of “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”. That alone was cowardly, but what happened a few days ago is enough to disgust any upstanding member of society.

As most people know, Thunderf00t is a very popular atheist YouTuber, and also a commentator on science, mainly evolutionary biology. He has been featured on many blogs, including Pharyngula, on certain issues such as the VenomFangX DMCA debacle and his popular “Why do people laugh at creationists?” series. Thunderf00t is, by all accounts, a mainstream and prominent atheist. He might not have books, but he has over 50,000 subscribers and the entire atheist blogosphere behind him.

So Thunderf00t decided to ask Ray Comfort to a discussion, since he was going travelling and would be close to where the Living Waters ministry is based. He dutifully contacted Living Waters, but they told him to contact Ray directly on his blog. This is the comment (now removed from Ray’s blog as requested) that Thunderf00t left:

For the attention of Ray Comfort,
Your staff (T Ramos) suggested I post this here.

I run the popular pro-science youtube channel under the screen name of Thunderf00t.

For context.
Thunderf00t 54 000 subscribers
Thewayofthemaster 9 000 subscribers

This summer I will be touring the US and should passing near to LA (the Mnt Wilson Observatory).

You have previously stated that you wish to have a public discussion with “prominent atheists.”;

My proposal would be simple and honest.
You and me, one room, one camera. Through civil discourse we examine our points of contest and points of agreement. We both then take a copy of the video. I will put it up uncut on my channel.
You are free to do with your copy as you wish.

If you have an interest in such a project, let me know some windows of opportunity and we will see if we can converge on a date.

If you accept or decline the offer, please delete this post. To otherwise will lead to pointless speculation about motives.
I would rather not have made such an invitation in public but it was suggested by your staff

Best wishes,
Thunderf00t

Polite, honest, and with all good intentions. Thunderf00t established himself as a popular science-minded atheist, and proposed a simple format for discussion. He didn’t even want a debate! He just wanted the two of them to sit down and discuss their views as any two men would do in a polite conversation. He requested it be recorded, so that others may watch, and Ray can do whatever he likes with his copy. The key thing to note at this point is that Thunderf00t demanded no money.

Ray Comfort accepted the proposal, but with his sick and twisted sense of morality:

Regarding your request for a debate. I would be more than happy to do this. The only condition would be an honorarium of $US100,000, payable to “Professor Richard Dawkins,” on my behalf.

In other words, Ray wants to use Thunderf00t to get to Richard Dawkins. He gets a decent and well-thought out proposal to a discussion, and Ray turns it around and throws back an insult. This is a despicable act of cowardice, and is deeply unfair to Thunderf00t, who was willing to give Ray the discussion he wanted, for free, and by means of a civil conversation. What kind of morality is that? Punish a person who comes to you with an honest request in order to get back at someone who you failed to meet the requirements of before? It’s beyond Ray’s usual ridiculous nature; this was pure greed, coupled with the kind of scheming you get from stereotypical “evil geniuses” in films.

Ray once agreed with Ben Stein’s criticism of Richard Dawkins, that he was fine with Intelligent Design, just not certain designers, like God. Well now Ray has shown his true colours, we can say a similar thing about him. Ray is not interested in debate or discussion with “prominent atheists”, only discussions with certain prominent atheists…namely Richard Dawkins.

Of course, who better to explain this than Thunderf00t himself:

Do Thunderf00t a favour and favourite his videos, rate them with 5 stars (it counters the votebotes that attack his account regularly), and leave a comment on his channel. He certainly deserves it.

Possibly Related Posts:

More Atheists Under Attack!

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 29 May 2009 21:47:47 +0000

Over a year ago I wrote about how my “atheist union” posters were ripped down and vandalized by unknown religious students, but whilst I was annoyed and angry at the attacks, they simply do not scale in comparison with the actual death threats that some students have received. The Leeds University Atheist Society runs an annual “rationalist week” to promote freethinking, atheism, skepticism, etc. During the event, a member of the society was threatened by a suspected Muslim student. The death threat took place outside the main festival tent, and was a face to face encounter.

The society has received death threats before from a Muslim student group, and nobody has been harmed. The victim this time has decided not to go to the police, possibly because the last threats were not followed through. It seems like the Muslim society is using the scare tactics that religions have used for thousands of years, and such tactics tend not to work on the rationally minded. Nevertheless, this is completely unacceptable behaviour, and a sure sign that the Muslim groups are participating in a campaign to destroy freedom of speech.

Further evidence of this can be seen in the attempts made by the Southampton Atheist Society to hold a debate on freedom of speech that contained a viewing of the “controversial” movie Fitna. It took two months to organize after the Muslim society continually objected to it, and the debate was finally held under the condition that police were there, and every student was searched by security. What exactly are Muslims afraid of? That we will expose their religion for the fraud it is? If so, they needn’t be afraid; we’ve known that ever since it was formed. If Islam was really the most truthful religion, then what harm can some atheists do? Why not come along to the debate and refute the claims made by the atheists? My guess is that the atheist’s claims are completely accurate, and the Muslim is simply too indoctrinated to accept anything other than what the Qur’an tells them.

Chloë Clifford-Frith of the AHS (National Federation of Atheist, Humanist, and Secular Student Groups) noted that there were an increasing number of examples of prejudice against atheists.

Leeds have experienced death threats, vandalism, theft and SU discrimination in the past. Warwick Atheists were also stripped of their ‘Best New Society’ award and prize money in 2008 after a complaint that a poster for one of their talks was offensive. The award, but not the prize money was returned some months later. Some societies have experienced problems with their SUs refusing to ratify their existence. Again, this is symptomatic of a wider suspicion of people who profess to be atheists – as if there is something threatening about not believing in a god or gods. Even Prof Richard Dawkins, when attempting to set up the charitable educational foundation ‘The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science’, had his forms returned to him with the suspicious question: ‘Please explain how “science” has benefited humanity’!

We shall have to see what lies ahead for my student group when we try to hold events this year. I’ve already emailed the Muslim society asking for a debate, but I doubt they will respond to my request.

Possibly Related Posts:

(Almost) Daily Dose of Comfort – Bone of Contention

Adrian Hayter — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:29:45 +0000

So Ray Comfort is off to his home country of New Zealand in order to participate in a debate about Evolution. I don’t see how a person who has repeatedly shown to not understand the theory can even think about participating in a debate about it, but Ray has drawn up a great debate plan:

1. An atheist is someone who believes nothing created everything. If he denies that and believes that “something” created everything, he’s not an atheist.

Ok, so the subject is Evolution, the scientific theory. It’s a debate concerning one of the fundamentals of biology, but why not throw in philosophy as well? Given that evolutionary biologists are often religious, I do not see how Evolution can been seen as a purely “atheistic” idea. On the subject of the whole “atheists believe nothing created everything”, the so-called “Ray Comfort Fallacy”, please read my previous blog post.

2. Man can’t create a grain of sand from nothing. How intellectually dishonest is it then to say that there was no Intelligent Designer?

Still not even close to the area of evolutionary biology. True, man cannot create a grain of sand from nothing, but why does this mean that some unknown “Intelligent Designer” has this ability? Humans are very intelligent designers, and yet we have limits as to what we can do in this universe. How do our failures imply that there exist beings that can do these things? It’s not intellectually dishonest to say that there is no evidence for an Intelligent Designer, simply because there isn’t any evidence, and we never will. A natural explanation will be found for everything, because to imply some kind of supernatural being is no explanation at all. Even if we can’t explain things naturally, there is no saying we won’t be able to at some point, and it certainly doesn’t make the supernatural any more viable.

3. Where did females come from (in every species)?

Finally, 3 stops down on the debate train and we get to biology. We also see Ray Comfort’s dishonesty out in the open, because he knows the answer to this question already. It has been explained to him at great length by P.Z. Myers after a few blogs post went back and forth between Ray’s blog and Pharyngula. After Ray challenged P.Z. to explain the origins of sex, P.Z. did so, and did so with gusto. I don’t think you could ask for a better summation of the evolution of species and sex, so I won’t even try to write one.

4. Which came first? The blood, the heart or the blood vessels?

Ray needs to learn how to use Google, because the results for a simple search will reveal far more than you could ever want. Panda’s Thumb has a great article about it.

5. There are variations within species, but no species to species transitional forms in the fossil record.

Nope, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. I repeat, there are no transitional forms in the fossil record. Every time this argument comes up I still find it hard to believe it’s still being used.

6. God made Archaeopteryx with teeth and a tail. It’s a bird, not a dinosaur. He made many weird animals. There’s a huge mouse with a pocket in its front that hops all over Australia, horses with stripes, weird desert animals with humps on their backs . . . and He made some birds with teeth.

Calling Archaeopteryx a “bird with teeth” is a gross understatement. The fact that the creature has more in common with small dinosaurs than birds isn’t just confined to teeth, but the claws, tail, toes, and other skeletal features. Archaeopteryx is a bird, but it is also a dinosaur, and it is clearly a transitional form that shares elements of both, showing how dinosaurs first started evolving into birds.

7. Paleontologists have a huge incentive to twist the truth, just a little. If they can find a bone with a lump on it, theorize that it was a limb or a feather, give it an impressive name, say it is 73 million years old, and suddenly he has his picture on the cover of National Geographic magazine, has a book deal and lectures for life. The human propensity to gullibility is evidenced by evolution’s many believers. Malcolm Muggeridge: “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution . . . will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future.” Evolutionists have done to science, what hypocrites have done to religion. We have men who call themselves scientists, when they should have instead got a job with Disney as imagineers.

Ray presents this view but doesn’t go into detail with specific examples of paleontologists doing this. Double blind dating is done on fossils to ensure the result isn’t skewed, so I don’t know where Ray gets the idea that numbers are simply placed on fossils at random. The theory predicts we should find these fossils, and when we do find them, they should rightly be presented to scientific enquiry. Evolutionary biologists have advanced science beyond the realms thought possible, and we now know so much more about our origins. In return, we have used this knowledge to forge a better future for our race. Where religion kills and feeds a misleading doctrine, science shows us the true light, and we are much better for it.

Possibly Related Posts:

Going on Christian Radio

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 23:15:14 +0000

I’ve been invited to a discussion of the book “The Dawkins Letters: Challenging Atheist Myths” on the Premier Christian Media’s radio show “Unbelievable?“. The discussion will be between lil’ old me and the author of the book, David Robertson and will focus on 3 – 4 of the apparent “atheist myths” he outlines in his book:

The myth of Higher Consciousness
The myth of Godless beauty
The myth of atheist rationality and tolerance
The myth of the cruel old testament god
The myth of the science/religion conflict
The myth of the created god and the uncreated universe
The myth of the inherent evil of religion
The myth of godless morality
The myth of the immoral bible
The myth of religious child abuse.

Of course having not read the book I’m unsure of what the arguments for all those are, but I’m being sent a copy to read before the discussion, and I’m told I’ll be able to influence the decision over which ones we talk about, which is always good. After all, just by reading the topics I’m not sure I would argue against some of them; the “inherent evil of religion” for example; I don’t think all religions are “inherently” evil, I just think most of them do more evil than good. The “science / religion” conflict I could speak reams on however.
It’s not a live show though, so that at least gives me less to worry about and more time to concentrate on having a good discussion, raising all the important points.

The people organising the discussion say it will probably air on Saturday 28th March at 2:30pm, and will be available digitally in London on DAB radio, or 1305, 1332, 1413 MW. You can also listen throughout the UK on Sky Digital 0123, Virgin Media 968, and Freeview 725. Those of you who are lucky enough not to live in the UK can listen to it live online at http://www.premier.org.uk/, or they can get the podcast form http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.

Right now I’m slightly nervous, mainly because I’ve never actually been on radio before, let alone been invited to a one-on-one discussion/debate! It’s really quite exciting when I sit down to think about it for a bit, I just hope David Robertson’s book is an interesting read and not just repeated arguments. I want a challenge for once!

Possibly Related Posts:

On Debating Christians

Adrian Hayter — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:46:59 +0000

Just over one week ago, a fellow atheist friend named Dan and I were in the student bar, drinking vodka-laced beverages and reading long pages of notes. In less than an hour, we would be debating two members of the Christian Union; a fundamentalist student society that believes the Bible is accurate, it just needs to read the correct way. The debate was entitled “Is God a Delusion?” , and team atheism had sorted out our lines of attack; Dan would be handling the fine-tuned universe fallacy, as well as the vicious nature of nature itself. I would be talking about the Theory of Evolution, illusions in nature, and our predisposition for seeing patterns that aren’t really there. We had conquered the writing of the speeches, we had even conquered the timing, getting everything into a 5 minute presentation each. The final thing we had to conquer were our nerves, hence the copious amounts of vodka.

This was the first time either of us had done something like this, and it didn’t help that only one other atheist had so far turned up to support us. Luckily, as the debate was about to start, 6 of our secular student group turned up to sit in the front row, which gave us that boost of morale to get us into the spirit. First up was a Christian who was reading Physics, so I expected him to go on about how the universe was such a wonderful place, fine-tuned to perfection. What I didn’t expect was for him to waffle for 4 of his 5 minutes, trying to explain what he considered “God” to be. As the chair banged her gavel to signify 1 minute remaining, my first opponent stumbled and quickly said something about how the presence of evil was proof of God. Whatever he said, I didn’t understand it at all, and I think my stomach gave a huge sigh of relief.

I was up next, and I managed to get my speech within the time limit, covering all the points I wanted to raise. The full transcript of both mine and Dan’s speeches are included below the fold on this blog post if you want to read them in full. Next up was the second Christian, who rejected a few of my reasons for why people believe in the supernatural, saying he didn’t believe for those reasons. This of course is a fallacy, as it can only be true on a personal level, and there are many people who believe in the supernatural for precisely the reasons I stated. His speech concerned Jesus and the power of prayer (which when I last checked was powerless). Not suprisingly, he criticised the scientific “prayer tests” and held them as an inaccurate way to determine whether prayer works (probably because the results determined prayer didn’t). Dan concluded the speeches with an attack of the fine-tuned universe view, quoting David Attenborough on his recent criticism of Christians, and pointed to the destructive force of nature as evidence against a loving caring God.

So then the floor was open to questions, and boy did we get them. I had to explain why Protazoa were still around “even though we evolved from them” as an American girl put, and how fish could develop arms when a mutation is required to create useless stumps first (clue: fish already have stumps…they are called fins). I also explained a rudimentry version of how we think the eye evolved, although on most of these questions I encouraged people to not take what I was saying without question, but to read up on it themselves (the last part of my speech was an appeal for people to start thinking freely). Luckily, my atheist friends asked the Christians a few questions about their beliefs, including a nice one about whether the discovery of multiple universes with different “tuning” would alter their belief in God.

An interesting couple of questions came from some Islamic students, one of whom asked me if I would mind if he came at me with a knife and killed me. I was expecting at least one question like this, and luckily I have a great response to it:

Let me get this straight. You are asking an atheist, someone who doesn’t believe in gods, the afterlife, or any kind of supernatural events, whether he would mind giving up what he believes is his only life? Of course I would mind! I happen to like life, and I’m not suddenly going to throw it all away because it is the one shot I have.

The same group of muslims asked us how we explained the revealed knowledge in the Koran, like the fact that salty water is separate from fresh water, and the Earth is shaped like an Ostrich egg. I didn’t correct his Earth shape hypothesis, because I wanted to attack the root of this question. I aked him plainly if he would read to me the passages of the Koran that said those things. He told me he didn’t have them on him, and so I told him I was sorry, but I couldn’t answer his question. I mentioned that these “revealed truths” are often simply very complex interpretations that are often extracted after the facts are known to science. The same logic can be applied to the Christian claim that the Bible talks about atoms, when all it says is “so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear” (Hebrews 11:3).

All in all, I guess the theists reckon they won, and the atheists reckon we won. The debate was concluded and no vote was held (we agreed it would be good to just let people leave with their own opinions). A girl did come up and thank us for talking about what we believed, and that she would look into certain things more, and that’s always a good thing. Dan and I decided that we rather like debating, so we’re going to do some more in the future, and perhaps organise an “Ask an atheist” evening in March. Another friend wants to debate with me against the Islamic society, so I’m trying to get in touch with them. Stay tuned for more!

Adrian’s speech transcript

The question in tonight’s debate is whether God is a delusion or not. When I say “God” I am speaking about the whole “God” idea; that there is some kind of intelligent mind behind the universe, who has concerns for how we live our lives.

It is this idea that I believe is a complete delusion, because whilst it all sounds very nice, it is utterly ridiculous. Almost every religion today puts humanity in a special “chosen” position by their God. We have dominion over all the animals, simply because we have free will and are made in his image. This was all very well for people to believe hundreds of years ago, but the arrival of modern science changed this completely.

We began to realise that so called “revealed” truth contradicted the natural world, and the best way to find out what actually constitutes reality is via the scientific method. Slowly but surely, revealed truth was replaced by observed truth, things that you could actually test for validity, and form scientific theories to explain. The acts of gods that supposedly took a matter of days suddenly became natural processes that took millions upon billions of years; and whilst people still held humanity as divinely chosen, 150 years ago, a man named Charles Darwin changed that view forever.

Evolution is a natural process that tells us where we come from, and how. Through the fossil record, we have seen how millions of species died out, and that we are one of the many branches on the so-called “Tree of Life” that made it. So in some respect, we are “special”, as we are the result of a 4 billion year old struggle to survive. However, every single species of animal still alive today is a survivor too, and they are equally as special as we.

People will object to this though, and say that the evidence points to divine intervention by God on some occasions. The town of Lourdes in France is a major tourist attraction for Christians, some of whom believe that the water from a local spring has healing properties. Only 66 declared miracles have happened in the last 150 years, and when you take into consideration that 80,000 pilgrims come to Lourdes each year, that number seems utterly insignificant. None of those “miracles” involved the sudden regrowth of limbs, or any other permanent affliction being cured, and since a medical bureau was established in 1947, the average number of “cures” people have reported per year has dropped repeatedly. As the popular skeptic Michael Shermer would say, you have to count the misses as well as the hits.

The Lourdes fiasco all started with an apparition of the Virgin Mary, who supposedly spoke to a 14 year old peasant girl on 18 separate occasions. Her eyewitness testimony is all we have to go on, but it is interesting to note that neither her sister or friend saw the apparition, even though they were with her. In the opinion of skeptics, she is either delusional or lying, and the closed nature of the Catholic church on this issue makes investigating harder. Apparitions of various forms have been reported ever since, some turn up on pieces of toast, whilst others are more complex.

There is a great video on YouTube of an apparition of Jesus on a wall, although any sane person watching the video will understand that it is formed by the shadows of tree branches. As such, it isn’t detailed, and it really just looks like a man in a white robe. Only when you have religious people claiming it looks like Jesus does your brain interpret the figure as such. This of course is the key to the whole thing. Our brain is wired so that we notice patterns very quickly, and if you lie on the grass on a moderately cloudy day, you will start to see all kinds of objects in the clouds. They aren’t really there of course, and I don’t notice religious groups claiming them as miracles, so I fail to see how a similar illusion that happens to take the form of a man in a robe means that it is Jesus Christ. The fact is, that patterns occur everywhere, and all it takes is a human brain to recognise them.

What I want to argue is called free-thinking, and it involves throwing all dogma out of the door and looking at the world for what it is, not for what we are told it is. Once you understand that there is a natural explanation for everything, the need for dogma and revealed truth promptly vanishes. While I am sure that a belief in the supernatural was probably important for our survival in the past, and it gives people hope even to this day, I look at a universe for which we can explain some things, and utter “I have absolutely no idea” on others, and that makes it even more wonderful to live in. I think it is time for people to accept that there are unknowns, and things that we may never know, but before we delegate them out of this world, we should make sure they are in this world.

Dan’s speech transcript

There’s been a lot of talk these kinds of debates about the beauty and complexity of nature. I get a familiar response from religious people when I tell them I don’t think there’s any evidence for a god, they sort of stick there arms out and gesture at the nearest groups of trees and flowers like its completely obvious they must have been designed. David Attenborough has been in trouble recently. He’s started a new series called Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, and said he’s had an upsurge in messages from people saying he just hasn’t been acknowledging God’s handiwork enough in his programs. He said:

“They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator.”

What goes for worms burrowing through eyeballs follows for everything else unfortunately. I really love his nature programs though; the BBC series Planet Earth which he narrated was amazing, attracting something like nine million viewers when it was first shown in this country. It’s gone all around the world since.

The thing which people tend to overlook when they look at pictures of wildlife is the unbelievable brutality of what they’re looking at. Everyone of those animals you see are in almost permanent terror for there lives, frightened of starving, of disease, frightened of getting an injury which is almost always a slow death sentence in the wild, and mostly frightened of just being eaten. Ultimately, all animals which aren’t kept as pets, and stroked, housed and fed their whole lives; die in one of those ways. They get old and weak and can’t get food or get too slow and get torn to pieces by predators. Think of the endless struggle out on the African plains between the zebras and antelope and the packs of wild hyenas and lions; one side can only be safe if the other starves without food, and the other can only survive by chasing down the weaker of the opposition and killing them. The system is psychopathic; it’s impersonal and totally apathetic to the suffering that’s going on. Any creator that built a system like that would have to be out of their mind.

People in favour of there being a God also like to point out the amount of ‘fine tuning’ in the universe. That the laws of things like gravity and thermodynamics have been ‘tuned’ ideally to create a universe full of life. The thing that really strikes me is that all that ‘fine tuning’ has created a universe that is almost completely empty space. You being present in 99.9 recurring percent of the universe will kill you instantly. We exist on one piece of space allotted to us in all that emptiness, in a thin film of life, on a climactic knife-edge, on a speck of dust.

And even there we aren’t safe. This is a world where more than 200,000 people can be swept off the beaches of the Indian Ocean, one day after Christmas. In fact the people of the western hemisphere were still celebrating, still eating mince pies and pulling crackers as the Asian Tsunami struck in 2004. There were families in America just sitting down and saying grace at their Christmas tables, as thousands of towns and villages were annihilated, and millions turned into widows, orphans and refugees. The universe really isn’t sentimental about its timing. But the devil is in the detail with these things, and one that gets me is some of the eyewitness reports. When tsunamis are coming in, the sea naturally draws out along the coast; people reported the small children from the local villages running out onto the miles of open beaches and laughing at all the stranded fish, totally oblivious to what was coming at them at nearly the speed of sound. The reason why things like that don’t drive us mad is because we know it isn’t personal, natural disasters just happen. We accept that the universe wasn’t designed with us in mind. But if there is a God, every bad thing that ever happens to us suddenly becomes something malicious, an all powerful, all knowing God cannot not be responsible for things like tsunamis and earthquakes, plague and the AIDS virus.

So really, to those of you who see God’s handiwork everywhere in nature what I say is, yes, look around you, but really look and be honest with yourself about what your seeing. To understand that there cannot be a God, and certainly not a benevolent one, is like a realisation of the obvious, it’s just so clear.