Speaker Suggestions

ChocolateSauce

Hi All,

Some of you may have seen a similar thread in The Other forum, so now I'd like a different sort of help. I'm the Auditor of the UCD Humanist Society and I'm looking for speakers for the year. Although I'd say I'm good for atheist and Humanist speakers, I honestly am lacking ideas for speakers from the theistic side. If you can think of people who you think would be good for public debates across a range of secular-religious topics, I'd like to hear the suggestions. So far our speaker list is entirely one-sided, and so debate potential isn't as high as I'd like .

So, anyone you think would be good?

Tim Robbins

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

So, anyone you think would be good?

John Waters, Breda O'Brien, William Reville, Gerard N. Casey (Philosophy Dept of UCD), David Quinn.

JimiTime

I think our very own PDN would be good.

philologos

Mark Dooley, columnist for the Irish Daily Mail, quite controversial on religion and morality in particular.

He wrote this article a few years ago concerning Richard Dawkins:
http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p294/gcooke/mail_small.gif

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Mark Dooley, columnist for the Irish Daily Mail, quite controversial on religion and morality in particular. He wrote this article a few years ago concerning Richard Dawkins

What a nasty little article that is! Do any people really read this stuff and agree with him?

I can't speak for ChocolateSauce, but I'm sure that the UCD Humanists are probably looking for somebody who'll present religious believers as less bad-tempered and spiteful lot.

philologos

robindch: You mightn't agree with him, but he certainly provokes a lot of debate about things. I'll let ChocolateSauce use discretion as to who would be most suitable . He's also a lecturer in philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

He's also a lecturer in philosophy at NUI Maynooth.

<shakes head>

Jakkass wrote: »

You mightn't agree with him, but he certainly provokes a lot of debate about things.

At a certain point honesty and decency are better tactics -- you can only achieve so much though provocation.

thetoken

robindch wrote: »

<shakes head>At a certain point honesty and decency are better tactics -- you can only achieve so much though provocation.

It is impossible to have a logical debate with a theist on a panel. How can a theist be honest and decent.

JimiTime

thetoken wrote: »

It is impossible to have a logical debate with a theist on a panel. How can a theist be honest and decent.

LOL. Logic and reason in full swing.

wolfsbane

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Hi All,

Some of you may have seen a similar thread in The Other forum, so now I'd like a different sort of help. I'm the Auditor of the UCD Humanist Society and I'm looking for speakers for the year. Although I'd say I'm good for atheist and Humanist speakers, I honestly am lacking ideas for speakers from the theistic side. If you can think of people who you think would be good for public debates across a range of secular-religious topics, I'd like to hear the suggestions. So far our speaker list is entirely one-sided, and so debate potential isn't as high as I'd like .

So, anyone you think would be good?

Here's a few of Creationist speakers who might agree to contribute if their schedules coincided:
Paul Taylor
http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=54

Philip Bell
http://creation.com/philip-bell

Paul Garner and Dr Steve Lloyd
http://www.biblicalcreationministries.org.uk/b/index.php/about-our-speakers
Obviously it would be better if they were in Ireland on other business, so you could see when that coincides.

This man is local - Northern Ireland.
Phil Robinson
http://creation.com/phil-robinson

As is:
Rev Dr Robert Beckett
http://www.affinity.org.uk/findachurch/article/crosscollyer_and_somerton_road_evangelical_presbyterian_churches_belfast/

Outside the Creationist issue, you might already have encountered this brother:
Crawford Gribben
http://publications.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/SchProfile.aspx?strLocalStaffID=4381&strLocalSource=SSL&strSchoolID=AHC&strUnitID=ENG_AMER

I'm reading one of his books at the moment. Very lucid.

Here's a list from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books/s/qid=1248023360/ref=sr_pg_1?ie=UTF8&rs=266239&bbn=266239&rh=n:266239,p_27:Crawford%20Gribben,n:!1025612&page=1

philologos

robindch wrote: »

<shakes head>At a certain point honesty and decency are better tactics -- you can only achieve so much though provocation.

Is it not possible that he is honest in his disagreement of Dawkins?

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

Is it not possible that he is honest in his disagreement of Dawkins?

He certainly seems to detest Dawkins quite honestly, but I don't think that any mature, adult -- especially somebody who is apparently a professor of philosophy and presumably has some native cognitive ability -- can write that kind of spiteful, inaccurate and witless article without being dishonest.

I'm sure he could stand up and speak on the topic of religion just like the UCD HS want, but if that article is anything to go by, he's going to win himself and his cause very few friends. But who knows, perhaps that's what the UCD HS want?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

He certainly seems to detest Dawkins quite honestly, but I don't think that any mature, adult -- especially somebody who is apparently a professor of philosophy and presumably has some native cognitive ability -- can write that kind of spiteful, inaccurate and witless article without being dishonest.

I'm sure he could stand up and speak on the topic of religion just like the UCD HS want, but if that article is anything to go by, he's going to win himself and his cause very few friends. But who knows, perhaps that's what the UCD HS want?

Spiteful? It seems to be no more spiteful than Dawkins' writings - and much less spiteful than the bile that we read on these boards from some of those who claim to be 'humanists'.

BTW, I don't agree with everything the guy says (it would pain me too much to agree with a Daily Mail columnist), but as a lecturer in philosophy he does have some understanding of his subject, which gives him an obvious advantage over Dawkins.

As for someone winning friends for their cause - is that really want the UCD HS wants? Are they looking for someone who can present Christianity well, or for a Fred Phelps type who will act as a strawman to confirm their pre-existing stereotypes?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Spiteful?

Um, yeah -- did you read it, and think it a generous piece which went to some length to present a thoroughly accurate and unbiased picture of an Oxford academic and some of his more recent work?

PDN wrote: »

as a lecturer in philosophy he does have some understanding of his subject, which gives him an obvious advantage over Dawkins.

Understanding the relative biblical or philosophical merits of the subtle arguments that god might wear a red, a white or a blue shirt, and being able to reel off the names of the ninth, twelfth and fourteenth century prelates who advanced each of these views, is irrelevant when the core of one's argument is that the deity almost certainly doesn't exist.

In this, as in much else in that eye-wateringly dumb article(*), Mr Dooley has missed the point by a statute mile.

(*) Does he actually get paid to write this stuff?

DublinWriter

Father Peter McVerry would be good - but I guess he'd be too busy helping poor people.

philologos

robindch wrote: »

Um, yeah -- did you read it, and think it a generous piece which went to some length to present a thoroughly accurate and unbiased picture of an Oxford academic and some of his more recent work?

It's an opinion piece. It isn't intended to be a news article.

robindch wrote: »

Understanding the relative biblical or philosophical merits of the subtle arguments that god might wear a red, a white or a blue shirt, and being able to reel off the names of the ninth, twelfth and fourteenth century prelates who advanced each of these views, is irrelevant when the core of one's argument is that the deity almost certainly doesn't exist.

I'm not in entire agreement with him either. He's rather influenced by Soren Kierkegaard. His point is that it is irrelevant whether or not God exists if it has a positive impact on society. That's where I wouldn't hold his views, but I think he's an interesting enough guy. I personally sat through a semester of his lectures.

prinz

robindch wrote: »

Um, yeah -- did you read it, and think it a generous piece which went to some length to present a thoroughly accurate and unbiased picture of an Oxford academic and some of his more recent work?

About as unbiased as calling a book The God Delusion.

wolfsbane

Another 'local' to my list:
Ted Donnelly
http://www.rpts.edu/documents/TedDonnelly.php

Tim Robbins

DublinWriter wrote: »

Father Peter McVerry would be good - but I guess he'd be too busy helping poor people.

A great man.

postcynical

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Hi All,

Some of you may have seen a similar thread in The Other forum, so now I'd like a different sort of help. I'm the Auditor of the UCD Humanist Society and I'm looking for speakers for the year. Although I'd say I'm good for atheist and Humanist speakers, I honestly am lacking ideas for speakers from the theistic side. If you can think of people who you think would be good for public debates across a range of secular-religious topics, I'd like to hear the suggestions. So far our speaker list is entirely one-sided, and so debate potential isn't as high as I'd like .

So, anyone you think would be good?

Have you any particular topics in mind? There are plenty of Christian humanists in universities too. I'm sure the Newman institute would provide plenty of intellectual speakers if that's what you're after.

Plenty of irony available from the locals here too:pac:

ChocolateSauce

robindch wrote: »

What a nasty little article that is! Do any people really read this stuff and agree with him?

I can't speak for ChocolateSauce, but I'm sure that the UCD Humanists are probably looking for somebody who'll present religious believers as less bad-tempered and spiteful lot.

For this year at least, Chocolatesauce is the UCD Humanists . But yes, I wouldn't want a blustering fundamentalist atheist being invited to represent that side in a CU debate, so I wouldn't take a religious fundamentalist on that same tune. We're looking for reasoned and fair debate- the society is officially less radical than I am, and as auditor I've agree to be bound by our mission statement.

Wolfsbane- thanks for the suggestions and I'll look into some of them, but to be honest we decided at the AGM not to entertain creationism and as such we will not be addressing it.

Thanks everyone, now I just need to google these names for a few hours :pac:.

thetoken

PDN wrote: »

Spiteful? It seems to be no more spiteful than Dawkins' writings - and much less spiteful than the bile that we read on these boards from some of those who claim to be 'humanists'.

BTW, I don't agree with everything the guy says (it would pain me too much to agree with a Daily Mail columnist), but as a lecturer in philosophy he does have some understanding of his subject, which gives him an obvious advantage over Dawkins.

As for someone winning friends for their cause - is that really want the UCD HS wants? Are they looking for someone who can present Christianity well, or for a Fred Phelps type who will act as a strawman to confirm their pre-existing stereotypes?

Thats nonsense.

Dawkins is only interested in facts and logical explanations, and educating people without needing to resort to making things up.

Having FAITH seems to require a lobotomy.

Faith is a cop out, as are the majority of ridiculous answers given to questions that Dawkins poses.

Seriously PDN you and the other fundaMentalist's on here really need to stop wasting your time, your God's existence will be disproved this century.

philologos

thetoken wrote: »

Seriously PDN you and the other fundaMentalist's on here really need to stop wasting your time, your God's existence will be disproved this century.

When the proof that God doesn't exist comes, PM me, or post it here :pac:

Edit: Does anyone else think it ironic that a militant atheist is prophesying on boards? A bit religious

JimiTime

Jakkass wrote: »

When the proof that God doesn't exist comes, PM me, or post it here :pac:

Edit: Does anyone else think it ironic that a militant atheist is prophesying on boards? A bit religious

I think the Irony is that faith requires a labotomy, and then a faith position is stated that Gods non-existance will be proved this century. I detect a teenager myself. Not a very bright one neither.

Zombrex

His comments demonstrates why we need more places like Camp Quest.

Trying to demonstrate the non-existence of a supernatural concept is impossible and oxymoronic, something the children at the camp learn through a team challenge to disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn in the woods around them



* nice little cross forum link I did there :pac:

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

His comments demonstrates why we need more places like Camp Quest.

Trying to demonstrate the non-existence of a supernatural concept is impossible and oxymoronic, something the children at the camp learn through a team challenge to disprove the existence of an invisible unicorn in the woods around them



* nice little cross forum link I did there :pac:

Well its a pain in the @rse when folks like the Phelps associate themselves with what you hold dear. Ignorant angsty teenagers seem to be the atheist equivalent. They're not REAL atheists though:)

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

Well its a pain in the @rse when folks like the Phelps associate themselves with what you hold dear. Ignorant angsty teenagers seem to be the atheist equivalent. They're not REAL atheists though:)

They are real atheists, the difference being that no one said being an atheist didn't mean you weren't a dumb door bell :P

Fanny Cradock

Ladies and gentlemen, thetoken has left the building.