My reaction to William Lane Craig V Christopher Hitchens debate

[XforeverlongingX]

@namasteywhat Crazyinsane's definitions are correct.

[ClumsyRoot]

@namasteywhat

Yes, atheism is the absence of belief in God. In other words, if you don't believe in God, you are, by default, an atheist.

[crazyinsane500]

@namasteywhat According to modern encyclopedias, Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. "A" meaning without, and "theos" meaning God. Ergo, Atheos means without God or "without belief in God". It's simple english. Now if you're using an out of date encyclopedia prior to 2005 (encyclopedias in my opinion should at least be updated yearly, but lets try the last five years) then you're not likely to get as accurate a definition as an encyclopedia that was made or updated after 2005

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 Congratulations, you cited a modern encyclopedia. The problem with this being that an encyclopedia is a general reference source. It's great if you want some general, foundational, basic information. However, nobody who wants to get in-depth on any subject would use an encyclopedia, whether that's history, science, mathematics, etc. So, although useful, one should look to a more comprehensive source, especially since this new definition is merely an atheist ploy.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 While yes, it does give a general referance for it, it's simply the meaning of the word. I have disected the word atheist to it's greek roots (atheos) and it means basically the same thing. To go more in-depth is like going in-depth about any other word in the english language with greek-roots.

Meanwhile more comprehensive sources, dictionaries, concur with the encyclopedia references.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 It seems simplistic enough to take apart the Greek roots and come to the right conclusion, however when you study the history of the word's meaning, and consider the rationale on why a modern atheist would want a very particular definition (that avoids any positive claims, coincidence, I think not), it becomes self-evident why the definition is being changed.

Google greek root atheism, second link.

FYI, a resource on philosophy would be more indepth, not a dictionary.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 The word means what the word means. There's no conspiracy behind it. Really it's only more recently around the 18th century and late 1700s where literacy became more commonplace where people began to realize what atheism truly was. While the popular image continues to stereotype atheists as anti-theists and satanists, the fact remains that atheists are only people who do not believe in a deity/deities.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 Right, so it was some time after scholars dealt with this issue for centuries before they started to get it correct. It was during that time when argument and debate in philosophy and theology was gaining more force and when atheism slowly started to churn up. It's no surprise that this is when the definition started to change since the atheist has neither physical evidence nor a positive argument for their stance. The word means what it means, so stop trying to change it.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 Do you believe in spiderman? Or do you outright state that he doesn't exist?

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 I state he doesn't exist. There are several good arguments to support the statement that Spiderman doesn't exist and it isn't all that hard to do. You can say that Spiderman exists, remain neutral on the idea, or you can reject the idea that he exists and affirm his non-existance. If all you can say is I don't believe that but I can't demonstrate that my stance is at all accurate at best you should be a biased agnostic since you admit you have no evidence to support your side.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 There are several good arguments as to why you don't exist either. The problem is that the proof is in reality. Can you prove spiderman doesn't exist?

And agnosticism applies to knowledge, not belief. Theism and it's branches (Including anti- and a-) concern belief. Much like atheism not being synonymous with anti-theism, it's apparent that you don't understand what agnosticism is either.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 Oh really? I'd love to hear that line of reasoning as to why I don't exist. Sure I can, it's not that hard. Spiderman - superhero - super powers from a radioactive spider - saves the day. No headlines in any articles about his heroism, no experiments of radioactive spiders, no further attempts to recreate more Spiderpeople, etc. If you think it's perfectly rationale not to say Spiderman doesn't exist, go ahead.

Yeah, the person who doesn't understand philosophy says that...

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 What do you think the spider-man comics and fans of the spider-man series are always raving about :) You do see the problem right? With no real proof to either side, the sanest position is to remain neutral until evidence is provided for at least one position. It's easier to lean towards his non-existance since the stories are fantastical and only documented in fiction.

And this isn't a question of philosophy, it's the definition of the words.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 You're making my argument for me. If neither side has proof, then you shouldn't be an atheist! You say the sanest position is to be neutral, and that's obviously agnosticism. It's easier to lean towards his non-existence.. and there you demonstrate, even by your own admission, your unsupported bias.

Definition of words used in what field..? Dictionaries are great, but if you want to talk jargon in a field, you ask people in that field or look into resources from that field.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 The fact that spiderman hasn't been conclusively proven and neither have the stories about him leans toward the idea that he doesn't exist.

The definitions of the words at their basic roots. Gnosticism is greek for knowledge and Theism is greek for belief. You're suggesting that the words do not mean what they really do. Words still hold their definitions no matter if you ignore all definitions and prescribe your own.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 It isn't just that there is no evidence he exists, but also evidence that speaks to the fact that he doesn't (which is wordy I'll admit.. Ex. like human limitations, knowledge on how radiation works, etc.).

Reference the link I provided that explains the issue with your use of the Greek roots, and refute the points it raises. I'm suggesting they do mean what they really do, you're the one who said the definition changed later, remember? I'm saying stop trying to change it.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 I never said the definition of the word changed, I said people's perception of what the word meant changed, the word itself didn't change. Like some people may see the word "Ironic" to mean "cooncidental" or "strange."

And that's the problem with your argument. You're arguing against a word that you don't even know about. You may as well say that two people getting on a train at the same time is ironic.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 The definition has changed, the article I linked briefly touches it. If you're going to argue only their perception changed, not the word itself, I'm going to need some supporting evidence here. Have any?

I'll say it again. Reference the link I mentioned in an earlier comment. Tell me why its interpretation of the word is wrong. You're merely saying my usage is wrong without supplying any data for it. I took your usage, explained why it was mistaken, and cited a source.

[crazyinsane500]

@Sickopath333 You view atheism as making a positive assertion, which it isn't according to it's very definition. You're not the only one to assume this, there are many who think this because of mis-information, alongside the word ironic.

And you may have glitched because I didn't get any article link.

[Sickopath333]

@crazyinsane500 Here's the crux of my argument that your own words attest to. Atheism has no evidence. Since atheism has no evidence (your words mind you) and presents no positive arguments for it (when theists do at least that much) it is only defensible to be an atheist if it's the neutral position (which it isn't) or if it is hailed as the logical, rational side (which begs the question if it has no evidence or positive arguments). Either be a rational agnostic or admit your blind faith.

[crazyinsane500]

@namasteywhat You do know that you can post comments that aren't short, right? You're only discrediting yourself with baseless claims.

[crazyinsane500]

@namasteywhat According to modern encyclopedias, Atheism is the lack of a belief in God. "A" meaning without, and "theos" meaning belief. Ergo, Atheos means without belief. It's simple english. Now if you're using an out of date encyclopedia prior to 2005 (encyclopedias in my opinion should at least be updated yearly, but lets try the last five years) then you're not likely to get as accurate a definition as an encyclopedia that was made or updated after 2005.

[Irondukesteve]

@crazyinsane500 A polite correction of your Greek, "theos" does not mean "belief" but "God". Therefore "A" (Without) "Theos" (God).

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 Theos does not mean belief. Theos means God. Ex: Theology is the study of God, not the study of belief.

[crazyinsane500]

@FadedChroma Sorry about confusing it with "belief," Wikipedia didn't specify what Theos meant. I will correct it as soon as possible.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 Good ol' Wiki'.

[crazyinsane500]

@FadedChroma To be totally fair, I only looked at the article on atheism, which didn't specify what "theos" meant, although I supposed I could have looked up "theos" as well, but that would've taken effort.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 A little research never hurt anyone.

[crazyinsane500]

@namasteywhat Exactly, Atheism is the absense of a belief in god, a synonym for absense is lack. Anti-Theists are outright against religion and tend to claim flatly that there is no god. Also, I do check encyclopedias, anything that is up to date.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500

This may help you:

/watch?v=XcuSMQVq5dM

[crazyinsane500]

@FadedChroma Ah, so that's where William gets his information from, a bunch of out of date encyclopedias and dictionaries. Poor man, he's probably just confused.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 Here's the (current) Encyclopedia Britannica definition of atheism: "one who believes that there is no deity." You are free to look it up yourself. I can't link to their site, so you will have to do some investigation yourself.

[crazyinsane500]

@FadedChroma The website's article on Atheism seems very lacking, yet still says that it is mearly the denial of a spiritual entities. Although I have to say the bias shows by specifically saying the name "God" while not also listing other entities to which Atheists deny. Although you are free to check it out for yourself.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 God is probably an umbrella term used I would assume, most use God or deity interchangeably. But I meant to go to their dictionary section and look up "atheist". Denial is different than lacking anyway, if someone says "You bought cookies" you can deny it saying "No I did not", but you wouldn't say "I lack belief about my cookie purchase." Then you would both proceed to give argument.

[crazyinsane500]

@FadedChroma I would have to dissagree about the God being an umbrella term. When the G is used in an upper case motive, then it's usually prescribed to the notion that it has to do with the biblical god. If it was lower cased, then it would be synonymous with deity.

Whereas yes, it seems that Denial is not synonymous with lacking.

[FadedChroma]

@crazyinsane500 *goes to type response*~~~(...don't feed the trolls...)~~~*resists urge to feed trolls*

[heeh2]

William Lane Craig is not ignorant. He knows very well that he is lying to his followers.

[M3PanoS]

@heeh2 LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO­OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL­LLLLLOLOLOLOL

[crazyinsane500]

@M3PanoS Stop spamming jerkwad.

[sixtiksix]

Succinct and plausible....

good job...

[irreverent79]

It's really just a blatant attempt to throw off the burden of evidence. I find it amazing how many so called freethinkers fall for it.

[crazyinsane500]

@irreverent79 The burden of proof is on those making the claim, not those who don't accept the claim. Especially if the claim is extraordinary, which thus needs an extraordinary burden of proof. But perhaps you're talking about anti-theists who outright say there is no god? Then that is like a zen riddle, how can you disprove what has not been first proven?

[irreverent79]

@crazyinsane500 I'm referring to Craig's move where he asserts that Hitchens must prove that God doesn't exist.

[Muthsera80]

Lane Craig is probably the most cited christian philosophers in America. Among the non loony ones anyway. But he's stuck in this track that you can just assert god from reason. While claiming there is no god is logically unreasonable. I find his way of thinking just frustrating. Logically this and logically that. Never sighting any evidence to support this arguments. It's been a long time since you could "logically" reason yourself to any truths. You do not see any philosophers working at CERN.

[heeh2]

@Muthsera80

Claiming there is no god is not logically unreasonable. Its a falsifiable claim....

[Muthsera80]

@heeh2

Yes I agree. In the absence of evidence, claiming that the notion is wrong is quite reasonable.

But that was not the point I was trying to get across. It's that Lane Craig believes that this is an unreasonable position.

[heeh2]

@Muthsera80

Do you really buy that though? I think he knows that he's wrong and he's just lying.

[Muthsera80]

@heeh2

I think the other argument is troubling him and making him lose sleep. But I think he believe he is right in his own argument.