The great debate: Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox

[DEBATE] Deus, Um Delírio: O Debate - Richard Dawkins & John Lennox from Deus em Debate on Vimeo.

In my opinion, Lennox clearly destroyed Dawkins in this debate pretty easily. In fact, some people suspect that Dawkins' coward refusal to debate William Lane Craig was caused, in part, by the beating that Lennox provided to him. Dawkins realized that, if Lennox destroyed him in public, Craig (who's a more experienced debater) would sweept the floor with him.

Currently, Dawkins has received a new debating challenge from Patrick Coffin, to debate with Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of Aquinas and the The Last: Superstition: a Refutation of the New Atheism). This challenge will prove again Dawkins' cowardice, because he WON'T accept.

And if he accepts, then we will enjoy a new intellectual beating of Dawkins.

The Rage Against God: Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopher Hitchens, explains his conversion from atheism to theism

Journalist and writer Peter Hitchens, the brother of the late Christopther Hitchens, was (like Christopher) an atheist. However, his life experiences, intellectual reflections and other reasons motivated his conversion to Christian theism.

In his very interesting book, The Rage Against God, Peter explains the reasons of his conversion and provides interesting insights about contemporary atheism.

Please read this article by Peter regarding his book.

The new atheist Christopher Hitchens dies of cancer at 62

Christopher Hitchens, one of the so-called "New Atheists", lost his battle against cancer. He died at 62.

Hitchens said, even after his disease, that he didn't believe in the afterlife. But if the afterlife exists (as I think it does), then I think that by now he could have changed his opinion.

Hitchens was a seasoned polemicist and a harsh critic of religions. But in my opinion, he wasn't a sophisticated thinker. Just watch his performance in his debate with William Lane Craig in 2009 (in which Hitchens was badly beaten):

Debate - Does God Exist - Christopher Hitchens Vs William Lane Craig from Iglesia Bautista Nueva Esperanza on Vimeo.

Anyway, let's hope he will be in a better place now. QEP.

New videos of people telling their Near Death Experiences

A tribute to Masakatsu Funaki: The world's greatest real Catch Wrestler and Submission Fighter

Despite of the fact that my blog doesn't deal with sports, I think that as a practitioner and long time fan of mixed martial arts, I must share some words about a man who has been a great inspiration to me. This man is Masakatsu Funaki, a seasoned martial artist and real (not fake) Catch Wrestler.

In United States, "Catch Wrestling" is commonly conflated with "pro-Wrestling" (the fake wrestling shows which features people like Hulk Hogan, the Undertaker and so forth). In Japan, "pro-wrestling" has been considered not so much as a fake, because people there tends to think that japanese pro-wrestlers are real fighters.

The truth is this: Many japanese pro-wrestlers are real trained figthers, but the pro-wrestling shows are mostly fake (like in U.S.). Funaki even participated a lot in these "fake" wrestling shows, and currently he's a "pro-wrestler". However, he is an actual, real figther. (Note the contrast with pro wrestlers in the United States: Almost all of them are not actual figthers, only showmen).

In order to create an actual, real wrestling event, in 1993 Masakatsu Funaki created (together with some other fighters) the organization of Pancrase, the first organization promoting mixed martial arts. The fights of Pancrase weren't "pro-wrestling shows" with fake fights and predetermined winners, but actual fights with few rules (e.g. don't strike with closed fists in the face, just with open hands) among martial artists from different styles.

In the above video, you can watch some of Funaki's real fights in Pancrase. He was a kind of a king of hand to hand fighting, a master of submission holds. With six different black belts (or their equivalent) in several arts, Funaki was a fighting machine.

I remember watching in situ some of Funaki's greastest fights and even talking with some of the wrestlers of Pancrase. I even trained, in seminars in Japan and United States, with some of them. They were absolutely amazing.

One of the fights that I never will forget is Funaki's fight with the great jiu-jitsu master Rickson Gracie. It was in the year 2000. I was present in that stadium to watch the fight and the bets were largely favourable to Funaki. I thought Funaki would beat Rickson, but I wasn't sure (Rickson was the best jiu-jitsu expert in the world). This fight was watched by 40000 persons there and 70000 through cable around the world!:



If you watch the fight carefully, you'll notice that it was on a par during most of the fight. Only at the end, Rickson's worldclass expertise in ground fighting gave him an edge. I never thought this fight would end like this, because Funaki is one of the greatest ground fighters and submission experts.

Funaki said before that fight that he would knock Rickson out in 3 minutes, and I thought it was possible because Funaki's strikes and kicks are extremely powerful. Rickson, smartly, avoid Funaki's punches and closed the distance creating a grappling situation. But even in that situation, Funaki could beat Rickson, I thought, since Funaki's grappling skills are of the best that I've ever seen.

I'll never forget that fight.

Some fans of mixed martial arts will dispute my claim that Funaki is the greastest living Catch Wrestler. They will say that Sakuraba was better and mention as evidence the fight between Sakuraba and Funaki in 2007 (which Sakuraba won):



Perhaps they're right, perhaps not. (The above fight was in 2007 and Funaki was past his prime. In any case, I happily concede that Sakuraba is one of the best figthers in the world).

But I think they at least will agree that he was one of the 3 top Japanese catch wrestlers and submission figthers of all the time. And certainly, he's one of the finest martial artists of the world.

Discovery Channel Documentary: The Shroud of Turin - New Evidence

Patrick Coffin's open invitation and the cowardice of Richard Dawkins: Is Dawkins afraid of Edward Feser too?

All the world already knows that Richard Dawkins is an intellectual coward. He used not less than 12 excuses for not debating William lane Craig:

Now, Patrick Coffin, the host of the Catholic Answers Live radio program, has published an open invitation to Richard Dawkins to debate Christian philosopher Edward Feser (the author of the book The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism).

An Open Invitation to Richard Dawkins

Dear Dr. Dawkins: Last week, on November 28, 2011, we devoted an hour on Catholic Answers Live to “Deconstructing Atheism,” with philosopher Edward Feser, author of The Last Superstition and other philosophical works. I invited you, albeit last minute, to call the show and you replied that it was too late in the UK but that you would deputize an American representative from your foundation, Sean Faircloth, who did call in the show. Dr. Feser and I tried to steer Mr. Faircloth back to the central question of whether God exists, and extract from him an answer as to why you refuse to debate William Lane Craig, the Christian philosopher and apologist. Mr. Faircloth had no answer, although he did exhibit above average question-dodging. What a disappointment. After the show aired, you emailed me to complain that Feser and I misrepresented the truth, that you indeed did debate William Lane Craig on national Mexican television in 2010, and that you hoped I would make an on-air correction to set the record straight.

Firstly, to put it charitably, it is a stretch indeed to call the Cuidad de Las Ideas event in Mexico a “debate with William Lane Craig” since there were six panelists, including you and Craig, on the question of whether the universe has a purpose. I watched the whole thing on YouTube, and there was no direct Q&A interaction between you and Bill Craig (who, by the way, blogged at the time that you told him to his face that you did not consider it a debate with him).

Second, I read with interest your essay in The Guardian titled, “Why I Refuse to Debate William Lane Craig.” I am no logician, Dr. Dawkins, but I do know that these propositions cannot both be true. I also note your willingness to confront lightweights like Rev. Ted Haggard, actor Kirk Cameron, or non-philosophers who happen to be English archbishops. I hereby invite you to set the record straight and debate Dr. Edward Feser on whether or not God exists. I know your dismissive line about the CV, and perhaps you’ll play that card here. But I hope not. Edward Feser is also not a professional debater (neither is Craig, but that’s another matter) but a philosophy professor. He’s not asking for a debate. I pitched the idea, and he accepted. As you know, even fellow atheists such as Oxford’s own David Came are recognizing a pattern of ducking substantial one-on-one debates when he sees one. We all see it. One atheist commenter on your website called on his fellow atheists to “inundate” our phone system as a protest against Catholic Answers Live. This is intellectual discourse? I posted an invitation there for any atheist to call and voice his or her arguments. None have taken me up on my offer. This is known as chicken hawk behavior, or: courage in speech, cowardice in deed. The Dawkins-Feser debate would be taped and released thereafter.

Either way, you would be free to upload the debate on your website both as proof of your victory and as the occasion to make your critics fall silent. Finally, because you live in the UK, we would be happy to accommodate you with a reasonable time of day. We would go with our preference. I believe the world is ready for an updated version of the famous 1948 BBC debate between Bertrand Russell and Fred Copleston, SJ. Please let me know. This is a sincere invitation.

Patrick Coffin
Host Catholic Answers Live radio program
www.catholic.com/radio

Having read most of Edward Feser's books, I know he's an intellectually honest, serious, erudite and rigurous thinker; in contrast with Dawkins, who's at most an intellectual lightweight and an inconsistent thinker. (Dawkins' main virtue is that his books are very readable, this is true. But people familiar with intellectually sophisticated thinkers would instantaneously recognize that Dawkins is not a great thinker. He's more like a sophist. See this post as evidence for this conclusion).

As consequence, I'm pretty sure that Feser would destroy Dawkins very easily in a debate about God's existence.

I predict that this debate won't happen, because Dawkins (if he knows who Feser is) won't accept the challenge. Dawkins will chicken away again.

But if (and this is a big IF) that debate happens, for sure Dawkins will be intellectually humilliated.