Three religionists get together and pretend that they are of one mind, just so that they can condemn atheists. What exactly is ludicrous about the OP again?
Is that what actually happened? I thought it was a panel assembled for a TV show.
I believe Mr. Dawkins was given 30 minutes to speak, then the three religionists were give equal time to refute his points.
Is that any different than it would be if the subject was politics?
And remind me again, is your point that they were in agreement, or that they weren’t?
Cite, please? Where did these people claim that they were “of one mind,” as opposed to merely being in agreement regarding God’s existence?
I’d say so. All the discussions of a subject I see on the news tend to have at least one person supporting each major argument. Or perhaps an alternative view as presented by one person who disagreed with the story. But a discussion of three people, all of whom disagree, doesn’t strike me as all that balanced, nor expected (regardless of the topic).
Isn’t that the problem we’re talking about in this thread? Do they all agree that “God” exists? That seems rather equivalent to suggesting they all believe Allah exists.
Oh, but i’m with you that they didn’t claim to be of one mind.
Perhaps, but we’re still talking about a TV programme - the composition of the panel and the time allotted to each speaker will not have been dictated by the panellists, I would think that constraints will probably also have been imposed regarding the subtopics of discussion and the extent to which the theists were permitted to express disagreement with aspects of each other’s religions.
When the President delivers the State of the Union, the opposition party picks a spokesperson to respond, but the networks also go out and grab a union leader, a corporate executive, a civil rights leader, an economist (or four), and any number of advocates or critics for the policies or issues addressed by the president.
Since Valteron has still failed to identify just what show (presented by what organization and funded by what sponsors) he purportedly witnessed, that aspect of the discussion remains one of blind speculation.
Pointing out that putting multiple religious people in front of microphones will garner differing responses to an address by Dawkins might be a proper topic for a discussion, but until we actually know who said what under what conditions, speculating about the nature of the address is rather pointless. (This is particularly true since Valteron ended his OP by providing a hypothetical that was pretty clearly not part of anything said by the panel.)
Now, the direction the thread has taken is fine, (for those who like such things), but trying to go back and introduce any aspect of the purported TV show into the discussion is pointless: we do not know that the show existed and if it did we have no idea what was actually said on it. I’d suggest keeping the topic centered on whether multiple views about (a) god invalidate the idea that such a god might exist and leave discussion about the propriety of hypothetical TV shows to another thread.
Part of what’s annoying about the situation described in the OP is that it’s hard to imagine a TV station airing other forms of religious debate. For example, why not have a Catholic and a Muslim debate which of their interpretations of God is the correct one? Or have a Mormon describe the basic tenets of his religion and then allow a Jew, a Hindu and an atheist rebut them?
Some producer decided that s/he could get a certain amount of revenue by having Dawkins show up. either to promote his latest book or simply because the producer thaought it would make interesting (i.e., attractive to audiences) TV, and then someone decided that there would also be an interest in providing a “religious” response. If youi think that a show could make money by promoting religious debates, then pitch the idea to a show that engages in that sort of presentation.
Worrying about whether some show is “annoying” because the show followed one (rather inadequately described) format is about as pointless as the OP’s baseless complaint that no one provides rebuttals to “sermonettes.”
The all agree that the entity that they identify with the string “God” exists. They don’ t agree on the details of this entity, which is the point of this thread.
It’s like three people saying elephants exist, while one things elephants are yellow with long necks, one thinks they’re big with a trunk, while a third thinks they have four hoofed feet, are white, and have a long horn.
Hmmm…this sounds like a rehash of 17th century Europe, and nobody wants to see that.
And nobody denied that they disagree on certain details regarding this god-entity. I see no evidence, however, that they claimed to be of “one mind.” They all claim to be theists, but there’s nothing in the definition of theism which demands that they agree on those specifics.
I believe that tomndebb is correct. We have no reason to believe that these theists claimed to present a united front – especially since we don’t even know which TV show this was or whether it existed. I’d say that tomndebb is right to suggest that we “[keep] the topic centered on whether multiple views about (a) god invalidate the idea that such a god might exist and leave discussion about the propriety of hypothetical TV shows to another thread.”
I thought that debate was over, though. Valteron’s the only person who seems to have agreed that the lack of agreement among theists invalidates any god they may believe in. Has anyone else said that?
I’ll grant that a Presbyterian and an Episcopalian diagree only on specifics. (Being Jewish, I have a hard time following the causes of Christian splintering, but I’ll grant that they are minor.) However the differences between Christianity and Islam and Judaism are on the basics, not on specifics. people have asked over and over again for a list of the important items on which all religions agree.
Now, all theistic religions agree that atheists are wrong to not have any god belief. But atheists reject specific instances of gods also. Say we have ten religions, with ten distinct gods. Each god will be not believed in by 9 of these religions. The democratic atheist, looking at the votes, says, fine, I’ll abide by the results and reject all of them. Now of course religious claims, like scientific ones, can’t be decided vote. Fine says the atheist again, the scientist chaps give me evidence, what do you got?
Sound of crickets.
It’s no longer politically correct for one religion to spend a lot of time telling how the others are wrong, though it is implied by their belief system. Only atheists, with nothing to believe in on this subject, get this dirty job. I think the situation would be cleaner if each religionist said why the others were wrong, but in some cases that starts the riots and bloodshed, so I’m fine with them being PC and polite. But it all boils down to each religion doing the atheists work by rejecting the rest - assuming they’ve got a good reason to do so.
The basics of their faiths, but not of theism. Therein lies the difference. Nobody denies that Christians, Moslems and Jews differ on tenets that are essential to their particular religions, but that’s not the issue at hand.
Or, for all you know, a Christian/Muslim/whatever producer wanted to make Dawkins look bad by putting him on a lopsided show. Contray to myth, the people who own the media are not soulless machines only devoted to making money; they are soulless machines devoted to making money who have, on occasion, other agendas as well. 
Me and IIRC at least one other; I don’t have the energy to reread the whole thread to find out who.
What’s the basics of theism, besides that some god exists? How would a theist live based on only the tenets of theism alone - those common to all. He’d say a god exists, and might even pray to it. He’d probably follow the morals rules basic to all religions - but basic to those without religion also. Besides that, I’m not sure. Would he eat everything? When would he take a day of rest, or is that included? What happens after he dies? Where and when should he pray? Does he expect anything of his prayers?
Most importantly, what is God like, what does God want, and what is the evidence for God existing? I don’t think your common theist would have answers to any of those questions. He probably would have faith about it, though.
I just reread the OP. Valteron does not say that the lack of agreement invalidates god, it invalidates many of their arguments to the atheist for believing in that god.
It is possible that one of the theists could come up with convincing proof of a particular god, which would automatically invalidate the others and validate his. In that case the lack of agreement validates that god. I suppose the evidence would include some reason for god not talking to the rest of them. But that’s not what the situation is. It is that n faiths argue for n different gods with similar arguments and equal levels of evidence (or lack thereof.) Since they all claim god is universal, all should have similar views of the one god. These things, taken together, are one more argument to not believe in any god.
None. That’s precisely the point. These gents DO agree on the basics of theism. The points that they disagree on are by no means essential to theism itself. For this reason, it’s foolish to suggest that their disagreement on such matters somehow undermines the case for theism.