I went there to see if I could find any atheist on there who was philosophically able.
"What's the difference between a fundamentalist & a theologian?"
I think that could be one of the most ignorant questions I've ever been asked on YT - ever! I would recommend some idiots guide to theology as you begin your research.
@TheCartesianTheist What do you mean by "philosophically able"? An atheist who's read philosophy? It begs the question of your end purpose. Let's say you find an atheist whom you feel is so "philosophically able" that he's read more than you. What does that prove or disprove? (More...)
@TheCartesianTheist Given that ignorance is a lack of knowledge, it follows that a question comes from a place of ignorance. So yes, you've correctly assessed the nature of a question. I wasn't looking for any definition. I was looking for yours. Given your assertion that the question is easily covered by an idiot's guide, I assume you're more than capable of answering. Given your assessment that the question is ignorant, it follows that you have an answer. And yet you didn't share it. (More...)
@TheCartesianTheist I asked the difference between a fundamentalist and a theologian because on multiple occasions in your video, you act as if there were a definite distinction between the two and your tone seems to suggest derision of the former and respect for the latter. This is a value judgement. Thus, I was interested in whence you derive your assessment of the value you've judged. (More...)
@TheCartesianTheist Presumably, you feel that fundamentalists are wrong and theologians are right. Yet, one of the pieces of "evidence" Craig claims to support his assertion that there is a god, specifically the god of the Bible, is that he feels it is so. This is identical to what fundamentalists claim. It seems, then, that on that one claim, the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal. (More...)
@TheCartesianTheist This isn't to say that the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal on all theological matters, but the one example is enough to demonstrate that there are similarities between what you seem to suggest are disparate views. So if you're going to allude to something as straight-forward as that fundamentalists and theologians are different and yet it can be demonstrated that they aren't so in all cases, my question arises.
It's not that. I just don't want to have to tutor someone in something so incredibly basic that's all. Sorry if that's patronising but it's the truth. Broadly speaking, anyone who talk about God in any respect is a theologian. So there are fundie theologians of course. Even some of them might have PhDs in theology and therefore be a professional theologian in a more restricted sense too. But the vast majority of theologians OVER CHURCH HISTORY have not been fundies.
Take one key doctrine of fundies as an example. The six days of creation supposedly 6000 years ago. That does not come about until Bishop Usher. The agreed doctrine of creation was a gradual one and not based on a literal reading of the creation story of Genesis as science but as poetry. Ronald Numbers has demonstrated the evolution of creationists and how much of a north American 20th century phenomenon they are. They don't represent historical theology on creation.
i was also banned from there. my nature is always to be a bit playful, so there was more justice to it than in your case...but it was still wrong imo. he's a rat imo, so are all his minions. good vid.
If you do not believe in a god from scripture, then why bother believing in a god at all. It is so unnessesary. And I became an atheist because of logical thoughts when I was about 13 and began questioning things. No man or woman was needed in this proces, just rationality.
I have a guess as to why RD spends so much time with the Ted Haggard's instead of real theists. i cant speak for RD but i think he frequently interviews the TH's because he is more interested in exposing their hypocritical and nonsensical beliefs and to inform the rest of the world that their kind of thinking is harmful. He wants to rid the world of this kind of religion where one does not think for themself.The philosophical beliefs WLC holds are not a threat to him and society.
@gat0rgirl13 Then why does he say that they are representetive of Christianity? Why doesn't Dawkins interview someone like John Polkinghorne or Christopher Isham? It is because he isn't interested in the truth. And the majority of Youtube atheist buy into that and are completely brainwashed. When I look at some of the vidoes the history where atheist post comments 99% do not have even the basic knowledge about what actualy happend.
@TheAwesomeMaths he says they are representatives of the fundamentalist christian right, he uses the disclaimer that not all rational christians think this way. in his documentaries he wants to expose the hypocrites, fanatics, fundamentalists and young earth creationists that wish to impose their beliefs on others and threaten science, not debate the existence of a god. interviewing a rational christian would be futile because the rational christian would agree with him.
But there is for God. Perhaps you should write and let all those professional atheist philosophers out there know you solved the issue since they're still writing long books about the issue unnecessarily!!
"Mr. Craig should not be allowed to call himself a philosopher"
The problem is he's got a PhD in the subject so it's a problematic suggestion you make. ;)
And if theists cannot be called philosophers [on the basis of YOUR say so no less] then that's the end of calling Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Locke et al. 'philosophers'!! Funny.
Well the first sentence demonstrates your own huge bias and makes you look like an obscurantist since I don't know of a single atheist philosopher who would agree with you.
And the second statement is utterly confused since you have to do some philosophy before getting to such a conclusion. But you wish to assume it from the start which is disingenuous.
"he always trys to belittle theology as a subject"
Good. So do I. There is much about theology to belittle.
"he's after good soundbites"
But not silly childish publicity stunts - the empty chair!
Anyway, I congratulate you on allowing people to comment on your video - theists have a nasty habit of presenting a one sided video and not allowing the truth to shine. BTW, ever been on Craig's RF site? Now they certainly do know how to ban and moderate! I'm sure you agree.
I am laughing at your anger towards Dawkins because he dissed the idiotic Kirk Cameron. So what if Dawkins can't remember it. Why are you so obsessed? You study a well made banana....must admit, it is as good as any of Craig's "arguments".
"just a little reminde of the Kirk Cameron case"
As if Dawkins gives a toss.
"why does Dawkins spend so little time with academics who are theists"
Why would he? Most academics are not theists, esp. in the UK.
@TheCartesianTheist I seem to recall a comment about Craig being considered a leading academic by most philosophers. But I guess that wouldn't be an argumentum ad populum, would it, old boy.
What is your opinion on the Ben Stein incident? I presume you would agree Stein mislead various people into contributing? Could Dawkins and co done more research? Perhaps, but then again, atheists tend to have more faith in the honesty and integrity of people than theists! (Discuss.) Stein was involved in that film that contained a series of lies and mistruths, wasn't he - "Expelled". LOL. I'm loving it. I love it that Craig is mentioned along with Stein and Cameron. Only Comfort to go.
Are you actually going to say anything of substance here or just keep writing petty little comments which make it sound like you're not yet through puberty? Plus you cannot even manage to reply to the points and questions I've asked of you.
@TheCartesianTheist I'm waiting for you to say anything of substance. As for the accusation of childish - who has put up an obsessive, bitchy video? YOU. Pull up an empty chair, mate. Oh, and what "points and questions" did you raise? I must have missed them.
An "obsessive, bitchy video"? Hahahahahaha. That did make me laugh I have to admit. Listen kid - it's clear you're not here for any intellectual discussion so I let you make a fool of yourself on my thread here. Time to get onto the video game threads and start an argument there. I think you'll blend in there much better.
Oh, BTW, you mentioned "fanboy" earlier, and yet here we have you making videos about Craig and Dawkins, old boy! It's so unusual for a theist to be sduffering from such cognitive dissonance!!!
"Oh, BTW, you mentioned "fanboy" earlier, and yet here we have you making videos about Craig and Dawkins, old boy! It's so unusual for a theist to be sduffering from such cognitive dissonance!!!"
So what your saying is,
Theists shouldn't be making videos about richard Dawkins, otherwise they will be known as fanboys
No, Timeless, that is not what I am saying. Leave the misrepresentation to Dr. Craig, old boy. They can make videos all they want, but don't call other people fanboys when they have a whole series of made-up videos about somebody else!
"Therefore God does not exist"
Gee, the evidence you put forward for God not existing is just as bankrupt as your evidence for.
Dilemma for Dawkinites: Either Dawkins is a coward or the other new atheists are morally abominable. Proof: Dawkins says that he won't debate WLC because he won't "shake the hand of an apologist for genocide." Premise 1 is just a logical way of stating Dawkins' excuse: (1) Dawkins is not a coward only if it is immoral to shake the hand of an apologist for genocide. (2) Dawkins is not a coward. Therefore (3) It is immoral to shake the hand of an apologist for genocide....
@TimelessApologist You should leave the false di/trichotomies to Dr. Craig, old boy. Also, I think Dawkins has a number of reasons not to shake his hand, including the fact that Craig's arguments are not interesting.
Grant what Dawkins says: (4) WLC is an apologist for genocide. Therefore (5) It is immoral to shake WLC's hand. (6) Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have all shook WLC's hand. Therefore (7) Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are all immoral. Now, if 7 is false, then Dawkins doesn't have an excuse, and we can reasonably conclude that he is a coward. So either Dawkins is a coward or he has just morally condemned all his buddies.
Now that's a good way of putting it. I had not thought of it in that way. Also, did you see him condemn the audience in Oxford who applauded Craig when he answered this charge? He then claimed almost everyone there must have been Christians since they applauded him!! And he wants to talk about delusions? Oh the irony!
Yes, Dawkins seems to enjoy making his cake and eating it, and supposedly Dawkins asserts that no atheist philosophers have ever heard of William Lane Craig, but for some strange reason Peter Milican had one of Dr. Craig's books on hand and stated it was one of his favorites.
THen afterwards Dawkins took a cheap shot at Milican
Except he hasn't, old boy. A string of non-sequiters is the best you can come up with? Shaking someone's hand makes someone "immoral". On what justification do you base that on.
PS. Accusing someone of non-sequiturs only to fail to demonstrate that even one was committed is the fallacy of assertion [your favourite fallacy it appears].
@TheAikenHead I would maintain there is evidence / are good reasons for the existence of God. Among others: the beginning of the universe, the contigency of the universe, the finetuning of the initial conditions of the universe for intelligent embodied agents, the existence of objective moral values etc. Now ofcourse each of these facts can be worked out and defended in more detail, but I'd maintain that for each of these facts, they make the existence of God more probable.
I disagree, of course. I am familar with these arguments put forward by theists, but none of them impress me, and most of them are arguments from incredulity. I do enjoy the fine-tuning argument. It is such an anthropomorphic view, and not a rational view. The universe is so fine tuned that the Earth will be toast in a couple of billion years time. If it is fine-tuned, it is not fine-tuned very well. Plus, there is nothing about objective (or not) morals that suggest God.
@TheAikenHead Whether the earth "will be toast in a couple of billion years" doesn't refute the fine-tuning argument. If something is degrading, that doesn't show that it wasn't the result of design in the first place. My car will probably degrade in several descesenia, does that show that it wasn't designed?
No, but I don't have to "refute" the fine-tuning argument, because I'm not arguing for it. YOU ARE. You have no evidence for it. My point was a perfectly valid question which you can't answer. If fine tuning is apparent, then why is the fine tuning destined to torch the Earth? If you are arguing for fine tuning, this is a conundrum for you. Not me, old boy.
@TheAikenHead If your question wasn't meant as some sort of refutation of the argument, then that question becomes irrelevant. Moreover, I have shown that ur question makes assumptions that you haven't justified, (namely that 1. humans and their technology could not have found a way in all those billions of years to survive and/or 2. that if God designed the universe he could not still also intervene later)
That is just a series of special pleading and unsupported assumptions. You're dismissed, old boy. Further, I noticed the anthropomorphic view again - humans and their technology!
@TheAikenHead Therefore it was not a 'perfectly valid' question if it were meant as a question with any relevance to the fine-tuning argument. Moreover there is good evidence for fine-tuning (see for example the works of prof. Robin Collins)
@GGDFan777 You have certinaly not demonstrated that my question was invalid. My question forced you to resort to special pleading and adding qualifiers to your unsupported assertion. It is very easy to quote from authority, ie look at the work of Victor Stenger for good evidence of no fine-tuning. You have not demonstrated any evidence of fine-tuning.
If something is *not* degrading, that doesn't show that it was/wasn't the result of design in the first place. You simply put forward an argument from incredulity. Further, your car analogy is useless, since a car is "fine-tuned" to transport people for so many miles, so many years, not "fine-tuned" for life to exist.
Moreover my 'car analogy' isn't useless, since I'm only using it to show that degradation doesn't necessarily entail that those things weren't designed in the first place (you don't deny that the car wasn't designed, nor do you deny that the car is degrading) Even granting your unjustified assumptions such that the universe is capable to sustain life 'only' for a couple of billion years, it's still true that the universe has to be fine tuned for life to exist for that finite amount of time.
So let's get this straight. Now you are saying the universe is "fine-tuned" a little bit, for a finite time! You can keep on adding qualififers to your premise, but your premise has no foundation whatsoever. Your car analogy is still useless because is still doesn't demonstrate anything. BTW, I did say that the Earth would only be able to sustain life for a couple of billion years, which is true.
That's the logical argument from evil you're using there. You are aware that atheist philosophers have almost universally stopped using that argument since it's been demonstrated that logically it doesn't work are you not???
@MrWaddefak This arguments from evil fails for a number of reasons. First of all, you haven't shown that God couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evils in the world. (see also: watch?v=Jb9CYYdxBQQ ) Moreover, I would maintain that evil is actually evidence for God's existence (see also: watch?v=PZylvupAhg8 ) For a fuller treatment about this objection read the chapter 'The Argument from Evil' by philosopher Stewart Goetz in the Backwell Companion to Natural Theology.
@TheAikenHead Moreover, your objection assumes that human beings and their technological developments in 'a couple billion years' won't be such that they couldn't find a way to survive, who knows what we will be able to do in the future.
@TheAikenHead Moreover, your objection also assumes that if God fine tuned the universe he couldn't also later still intervene (perhaps God will create a new heaven and a new earth before 'the earth will be toast'?). Your assumptions are groundless.
Special pleading, old boy. You have no evidence a God will or can "intervene". So, actually, despite what you confidently say, my assertions are still standing.
PS - if a God has to intervene, isn't that an argument *against* fine-tuning? Nice try, old boy.
Special pleading, old boy. You have no evidence a God will or can "intervene". So, actually, despite what you confidently say, my assertions are still standing.
PS - if a God has to intervene, isn't that an argument *against* fine-tuning? Nice try, old boy.
@TheAikenHead You then say: "there is nothing about objective (or not) morals that suggest God."... Yes it does if the following premise is true: "If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist" and that premise is certainly plausile, for if God does not exist and we are just the result of blind evolution, there wouldn't be such a thing as objective good or evil.
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
@TheAikenHead As even Richard Dawkins writes: "...there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Why is Richard Dawkins wrong if God indeed does not exist? But I maintain there are objective values, and that objective good and evil does therefore exis. Therefore it follows logically that God does exists, cause without God there would be no such things as objective good or evil.
Flaw No. 1. You have not established whether objective values exist independent of humans making them objective. Flaw No. 2. You have not demonstrated how it flows logically that God exists because of Flaw No. 1. So, you have a double flaw there, old boy.
@TheAikenHead I would defend the fact that objective moral values exist through moral experience. Through moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective moral values and we have no good reason to deny what we clearly perceive. As atheist philosopher Louise Antony explains “Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”
@GGDFan777 "I would defend the fact that objective moral values exist through moral experience."
"Moral experience?" This is quite a weak point to mount your defense particularly since you are ignoring the mounting scientific evidence of the physical origins of moral and pro-social behaviors.
Moral values exist because of brain architecture and activity. For evidence of this, please paste the following ids into pubmed(dot)com and read the articles:
@Greyclouds40 I'm not sure if anything you said refutes the claim that objective moral values exist so what is your point is here? Do you agree with me that objective moral values exist or not? See also question 36 ("Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values" ) at WLC's reasonablefaith (dot) org website.
@GGDFan777 "I'm not sure if anything you said refutes the claim that objective moral values exist "
Of course not; however, we have observed such objective moral values within animal species and we can attribute their development to social cognition, social learning and biochemical reactions within the brain.
Given these physical properties, the necessity of a "god" to impart moral values seems less relevant. The evidence stands: physical processes impart social behaviors/reactions.
@TheAikenHead God's existence then 'flows logically' from both premises:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exist
This is valid deductive reasoning. Now if you still don't accept that objective moral values exist then this argument won't work for you obviously and we should focus on the other arguments.
Wow - we've got ourselves a real Dawkins Disciple here!
It does not matter about these mini-debates being for TV. I am pointing out that Dawkins finds time for every raving North-American Creationist out there but suddenly can't find the time for a professional philosopher.
I can understand why you're so obviously angry and defensive.
"The majority of atheists"??? Who are they exactly? Do they have formal qualifications in philosophy per chance? Didn't think so.
@TheCartesianTheist Disciple? Who has made a video about Dawkins? Not me. *YOU*. Oh, and as an atheist, I'm sooooo used to accusations of being "angry". Why not "strident"? Isn't that the usual put down?
By whom? Not by me, he isn't. Certainly the majority of atheists don't rate him as an academic at all.
"I hope you debate him since I would like to remember you as a great scientist, and not a lousy philosopher".
LOL. This just confirms the view that how good Craig is at debating has nothing to do with his validity. The science will keep on moving us forward, Craig's "philosophy" will not.
That was for the TV programme. Exactly what I mentioned earlier. Gee, she was really awful, wasn't she? Completely ignorant and irritating person.
"Ted Haggard"
Again, for the TV programme! Nice try, though. Did you see the bit when Haggard went nuts because Dawkins implied that "his children" were primates. Classic TV! He was quite unpleasant towards Dawkins, IIRC.
"it is interesting that he calls Craig a professional debater"
Why? That is what Craig does. His "debates" show that he uses all the professinal tricks of a debater, including rhetoric, the gish gallop, logical fallcies and misrepresentation. Sounds and looks like a "professional debater" to me. Perhaps you think this description highlights the fact Craig's arguments have very little credibility.
Gosh, someone needs to take a deep breath in here!
The point being made is that Craig is far more than that. Dawkins means it as a slur which is why he cannot even bring himself to admit Craig is a Professor [a title which Craig did not buy - UNLIKE Dawkins by the way!!]. Also Craig has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and is held in high esteem by the vast majority of atheist philosophers.
@TheCartesianTheist "Also Craig has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and is held in high esteem by the vast majority of atheist philosophers."
Vast majority? Sources, please? Many probably admit he is a good debater, but not many value his arguments. Further, philosophical peer review is no match for scientific peer review. Philosophy can't go through the tests, demonstrations and observation process science can. Nice try, though.
Ahhh - now I know where you're coming from and what level of debate you're at since you do your research on moral issues from Radio 5 Live call in!! I can just imagine you on the end of the phone calling in. It all makes perfect sense now. Thanks. That was funny.
Get over yourself! Oh, and you are very generous describing Richard Swinburne as a "philosopher". You obviously still get the thing about Dawkins being polite. He is trying not to say "fuck off", Mr. Craig. Understand now, Old Boy.
@TheCartesianTheist Of course, especially when you have MR. dawkins and his groupies there to censor everything! Yes, unfortunately some people that are still stuck in the stone age thinking that is logical positivism. Only delusional naturalists and positivists are allowed, anything else is prohibited. I'm sorry about your "unfortunate'' experience at the richard dawkins foundation. (Although you have not lost much by being blocked, trust me) HAHA!
Yes, I agree. Being on there I had the feeling that there was a definite cult-feel about it and that getting through to anyone in a rational way was going to be impossible. The way everyone was so incredibly defensive about Dawkins was very boring too. Like he should not even be questioned. What was weird was that most of them were extremely anti-philosophy. Even most scientism leaves some room for philosophy but it was funny how most there disparaged it completely.
@TheCartesianTheist ''Cult-feel" describes the site correctly. I couldn't have said it better. You're right it is impossible to reason with them. I was arguing with individuals how naturalism refutes itself and before there was a consensus reached, I was ''mysteriously'' blocked by the moderators of that site. You're right, they are anti-philosophy, yet at the same time their material is rampant with philosophical implications. Quite the censorship! No wonder they're philosophy is so premature.
"''Cult-feel" describes the site correctly. I couldn't have said it better."
I think this is spot on. There does appear to be a group-think mentality to dawkinsnet which borders on the hysterical in many cases - as ably demonstrated by our friend TheAikenHead and his run-of-the-mill Dawkinsisms.
"Dawkins goes to America all the time to interview Young Earth Creationists".
Does he? It is not often he does that, unless you are referring to a TV programme he was involved with. You would expect that to happen. I can sense a series of ad homs developing here.
When Quentin Smith says William Lane Craig is a "leading philosopher", I knew this video had no credibility. The narrator also points out that Dawkins doesn't meet Craig's qualification for debate, ie he lacks a qualification in philosophy. But then why is Craig so obsessed with Dawkins? Desperation? It is worth pointing out Craig does not have a qualification in mathematics, science, or evo devo. Keep making us laugh, theists!
"Because Craig is not considered a leading philosopher."
Because you say so? So a leading atheist philosopher [Quentin Smith] calls Craig a "leading philosopher" but you disagree with Smith and, for no reason given, you decide your evaluation is better?
What's the bet? That you've read more of Craig's peer reviewed philosophical papers or that Smith has? Bets please...
Slly atheist doggins purports to be giving expert testimony in the field of Philosophy. Pointing out that he is not an expert in that field is not a logical fallacy.
@1GodOnlyOne If the lucasian professor of mathematics at cambridge university, or his toilet cleaner say's 1+2=3 their argument is either valid or Invalid independent of the qualifications hight weight shoe size ect, of that individual, the person is quite irrelevant, in logic the only important thing is the argument at hand
Richard Dawkins is an embarrassment, especially to professional and trained philosophers who are also atheists. He was taken to task recently in the pages of The Guardian by two of his fellow atheists for ducking Dr. Craig and attacking him personally in print rather than appear on stage. As with all of the so-called "new atheists," Dawkins is not interested in honesty or rigorous debate, nor is he interested in really understanding what he claims to critique and reject.
Good video - I just had three atheists block me because I had them cornered and they had no rational response to my reply, so they they deemed it fitting to censor me rather than continue any further debate with me. Challenge the atheist into a corner, and he will make a last comment concerning how ignorant you are before blocking you and not allowing you a chance to respond in a last ditch effort to save face.
I always wondered if the RDF website allowed opposing points of view. Apparently they do, but only within very narrow parameters.
I'm not terribly surprised, as I guess you aren't either. The Dawkins fanbois are EXTREMELY doctrinarie, and any criticism of their Fearless Leader is going to be construed as an attack.
The atheist is always whining about "free speech."
Apparently, the atheist only wants free speech for himself, not for those who disagree with him, or for those who present good reasons to accept the validity of Theism and reject atheist Dogma as unscientific, irrational hogwash.
Great latest video yourself. That is ANOTHER example of the free speech issue. I've had three atheists warn me not to say anything about Hitchens so close to his dying and yet Hitchens himself said some horrendous things about other people within hours of their dying. The only reason not to is to not stoop as low as he did and out of respect for Hitchen's family and his brother who is a Christian. Atheists just love hypocrisy I guess.
Why did you go on in the first place? What did you expect to gain? What's the difference between a fundamentalist & a theologian?
antonahill 1 week ago
@antonahill
I went there to see if I could find any atheist on there who was philosophically able.
"What's the difference between a fundamentalist & a theologian?"
I think that could be one of the most ignorant questions I've ever been asked on YT - ever! I would recommend some idiots guide to theology as you begin your research.
TheCartesianTheist 23 hours ago
@TheCartesianTheist What do you mean by "philosophically able"? An atheist who's read philosophy? It begs the question of your end purpose. Let's say you find an atheist whom you feel is so "philosophically able" that he's read more than you. What does that prove or disprove? (More...)
antonahill 22 hours ago
@TheCartesianTheist Given that ignorance is a lack of knowledge, it follows that a question comes from a place of ignorance. So yes, you've correctly assessed the nature of a question. I wasn't looking for any definition. I was looking for yours. Given your assertion that the question is easily covered by an idiot's guide, I assume you're more than capable of answering. Given your assessment that the question is ignorant, it follows that you have an answer. And yet you didn't share it. (More...)
antonahill 22 hours ago
@TheCartesianTheist I asked the difference between a fundamentalist and a theologian because on multiple occasions in your video, you act as if there were a definite distinction between the two and your tone seems to suggest derision of the former and respect for the latter. This is a value judgement. Thus, I was interested in whence you derive your assessment of the value you've judged. (More...)
antonahill 22 hours ago
@TheCartesianTheist Presumably, you feel that fundamentalists are wrong and theologians are right. Yet, one of the pieces of "evidence" Craig claims to support his assertion that there is a god, specifically the god of the Bible, is that he feels it is so. This is identical to what fundamentalists claim. It seems, then, that on that one claim, the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal. (More...)
antonahill 22 hours ago
@TheCartesianTheist This isn't to say that the fundamentalist view and the theological view are equal on all theological matters, but the one example is enough to demonstrate that there are similarities between what you seem to suggest are disparate views. So if you're going to allude to something as straight-forward as that fundamentalists and theologians are different and yet it can be demonstrated that they aren't so in all cases, my question arises.
antonahill 21 hours ago
@antonahill
It's not that. I just don't want to have to tutor someone in something so incredibly basic that's all. Sorry if that's patronising but it's the truth. Broadly speaking, anyone who talk about God in any respect is a theologian. So there are fundie theologians of course. Even some of them might have PhDs in theology and therefore be a professional theologian in a more restricted sense too. But the vast majority of theologians OVER CHURCH HISTORY have not been fundies.
TheCartesianTheist 20 hours ago
@antonahill
Take one key doctrine of fundies as an example. The six days of creation supposedly 6000 years ago. That does not come about until Bishop Usher. The agreed doctrine of creation was a gradual one and not based on a literal reading of the creation story of Genesis as science but as poetry. Ronald Numbers has demonstrated the evolution of creationists and how much of a north American 20th century phenomenon they are. They don't represent historical theology on creation.
TheCartesianTheist 20 hours ago
@jennpunk4lif3
The internet fashion police have arrived!! LOL
TheCartesianTheist 1 week ago
i was also banned from there. my nature is always to be a bit playful, so there was more justice to it than in your case...but it was still wrong imo. he's a rat imo, so are all his minions. good vid.
LucyHarcarty 2 weeks ago
@ANIOLATORV
Congratulations on one of the most ridiculous comments I have ever seen on YT.
TheCartesianTheist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you do not believe in a god from scripture, then why bother believing in a god at all. It is so unnessesary. And I became an atheist because of logical thoughts when I was about 13 and began questioning things. No man or woman was needed in this proces, just rationality.
LluOukL 1 month ago
I have a guess as to why RD spends so much time with the Ted Haggard's instead of real theists. i cant speak for RD but i think he frequently interviews the TH's because he is more interested in exposing their hypocritical and nonsensical beliefs and to inform the rest of the world that their kind of thinking is harmful. He wants to rid the world of this kind of religion where one does not think for themself.The philosophical beliefs WLC holds are not a threat to him and society.
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
@gat0rgirl13 Then why does he say that they are representetive of Christianity? Why doesn't Dawkins interview someone like John Polkinghorne or Christopher Isham? It is because he isn't interested in the truth. And the majority of Youtube atheist buy into that and are completely brainwashed. When I look at some of the vidoes the history where atheist post comments 99% do not have even the basic knowledge about what actualy happend.
TheAwesomeMaths 1 month ago
@TheAwesomeMaths he says they are representatives of the fundamentalist christian right, he uses the disclaimer that not all rational christians think this way. in his documentaries he wants to expose the hypocrites, fanatics, fundamentalists and young earth creationists that wish to impose their beliefs on others and threaten science, not debate the existence of a god. interviewing a rational christian would be futile because the rational christian would agree with him.
gat0rgirl13 1 month ago
There is no evidence for a magic skydaddy. That solves the whole debate.
LluOukL 1 month ago
@LluOukL
But there is for God. Perhaps you should write and let all those professional atheist philosophers out there know you solved the issue since they're still writing long books about the issue unnecessarily!!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@83nickv
You are absolutly right
LluOukL 1 month ago
I'd ban you from my website if you called me a lousy anything.
sundayraver 1 month ago
@sundayraver
Lousy troll.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
Mr. Craig should not be allowed to call himself a philosopher
when you stop to look for truth as soon as you've found the answer "god", your a believer and not a philosopher
83nickv 1 month ago
@83nickv
"Mr. Craig should not be allowed to call himself a philosopher"
The problem is he's got a PhD in the subject so it's a problematic suggestion you make. ;)
And if theists cannot be called philosophers [on the basis of YOUR say so no less] then that's the end of calling Kant, Leibniz, Descartes, Berkeley, Locke et al. 'philosophers'!! Funny.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
@TheCartesianTheist
i wouldn't call anyone philosopher (no matter how well established) if he/she accepts that the abrahameic god exists
philosophy really is the study and understanding of truth, and a god is not a valid answer in any philosophy due to lack of evidence
83nickv 1 month ago 2
@83nickv
Well the first sentence demonstrates your own huge bias and makes you look like an obscurantist since I don't know of a single atheist philosopher who would agree with you.
And the second statement is utterly confused since you have to do some philosophy before getting to such a conclusion. But you wish to assume it from the start which is disingenuous.
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
I think hes getting old and has no idea what hes doing
truth2350 1 month ago
By not debating such a world renowned intellectual such as Dr. Craig, Dawkins is really blowing it for himself.
Mkvine 1 month ago
You're such a loser.
iasedu 2 months ago
@iasedu
Thanks for your intellectual remark - much appreciated. ;)
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago 3
@iasedu Yea thanks loser.
matrixlone 1 month ago
Defamatory remarks? Heh, that's pretty desperate. Dawkins is a joke...
StygianDysnomia 2 months ago
Comment removed
ShahBulleh 2 months ago
2:45
"That should be 'Doctor' Craig"
Dawkins is an asshat, but it seems like you constantly give an embarrassing rim-job to everything academia.
QuantumMaths 2 months ago
"he always trys to belittle theology as a subject"
Good. So do I. There is much about theology to belittle.
"he's after good soundbites"
But not silly childish publicity stunts - the empty chair!
Anyway, I congratulate you on allowing people to comment on your video - theists have a nasty habit of presenting a one sided video and not allowing the truth to shine. BTW, ever been on Craig's RF site? Now they certainly do know how to ban and moderate! I'm sure you agree.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"so much time with fundamentalists in North America"
You mean, for a TV programme he was involved with? BTW, do "fundamentalists" believe genocide is justified if commanded by God?
"I don't think you have to contruct a conspiracy theory"
Nope, it is just obsession on your and Craig's parts.
"Dawkins is not serious about debating theologians"
Nope. Why would he? He is not serious about debating with experts on unicorns, either.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"Berkeley video"
I am laughing at your anger towards Dawkins because he dissed the idiotic Kirk Cameron. So what if Dawkins can't remember it. Why are you so obsessed? You study a well made banana....must admit, it is as good as any of Craig's "arguments".
"just a little reminde of the Kirk Cameron case"
As if Dawkins gives a toss.
"why does Dawkins spend so little time with academics who are theists"
Why would he? Most academics are not theists, esp. in the UK.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
"Most academics are not theists, esp. in the UK."
That's not an argumentum ad populum is it???
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist I seem to recall a comment about Craig being considered a leading academic by most philosophers. But I guess that wouldn't be an argumentum ad populum, would it, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"Stein"
What is your opinion on the Ben Stein incident? I presume you would agree Stein mislead various people into contributing? Could Dawkins and co done more research? Perhaps, but then again, atheists tend to have more faith in the honesty and integrity of people than theists! (Discuss.) Stein was involved in that film that contained a series of lies and mistruths, wasn't he - "Expelled". LOL. I'm loving it. I love it that Craig is mentioned along with Stein and Cameron. Only Comfort to go.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
You're right there.
Ray Comfort would be more on Dawkins' level! ;)
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist "If you see a well made banana..." LOL.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist You dodged the issue of the integrity of Stein and his "documentary".
Good move, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Are you actually going to say anything of substance here or just keep writing petty little comments which make it sound like you're not yet through puberty? Plus you cannot even manage to reply to the points and questions I've asked of you.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist I'm waiting for you to say anything of substance. As for the accusation of childish - who has put up an obsessive, bitchy video? YOU. Pull up an empty chair, mate. Oh, and what "points and questions" did you raise? I must have missed them.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
An "obsessive, bitchy video"? Hahahahahaha. That did make me laugh I have to admit. Listen kid - it's clear you're not here for any intellectual discussion so I let you make a fool of yourself on my thread here. Time to get onto the video game threads and start an argument there. I think you'll blend in there much better.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
RESTED IS MY CASE.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Sorry, what case was that again? I did not spot any case just some ramblings.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist The case is still very much rested, old boy.
Oh, BTW, you mentioned "fanboy" earlier, and yet here we have you making videos about Craig and Dawkins, old boy! It's so unusual for a theist to be sduffering from such cognitive dissonance!!!
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
"Oh, BTW, you mentioned "fanboy" earlier, and yet here we have you making videos about Craig and Dawkins, old boy! It's so unusual for a theist to be sduffering from such cognitive dissonance!!!"
So what your saying is,
Theists shouldn't be making videos about richard Dawkins, otherwise they will be known as fanboys
Therefore God does not exist
^Invalid argument that makes no sense^
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
No, Timeless, that is not what I am saying. Leave the misrepresentation to Dr. Craig, old boy. They can make videos all they want, but don't call other people fanboys when they have a whole series of made-up videos about somebody else!
"Therefore God does not exist"
Gee, the evidence you put forward for God not existing is just as bankrupt as your evidence for.
LOL.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Dilemma for Dawkinites: Either Dawkins is a coward or the other new atheists are morally abominable. Proof: Dawkins says that he won't debate WLC because he won't "shake the hand of an apologist for genocide." Premise 1 is just a logical way of stating Dawkins' excuse: (1) Dawkins is not a coward only if it is immoral to shake the hand of an apologist for genocide. (2) Dawkins is not a coward. Therefore (3) It is immoral to shake the hand of an apologist for genocide....
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist You should leave the false di/trichotomies to Dr. Craig, old boy. Also, I think Dawkins has a number of reasons not to shake his hand, including the fact that Craig's arguments are not interesting.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Grant what Dawkins says: (4) WLC is an apologist for genocide. Therefore (5) It is immoral to shake WLC's hand. (6) Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens have all shook WLC's hand. Therefore (7) Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are all immoral. Now, if 7 is false, then Dawkins doesn't have an excuse, and we can reasonably conclude that he is a coward. So either Dawkins is a coward or he has just morally condemned all his buddies.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
Now that's a good way of putting it. I had not thought of it in that way. Also, did you see him condemn the audience in Oxford who applauded Craig when he answered this charge? He then claimed almost everyone there must have been Christians since they applauded him!! And he wants to talk about delusions? Oh the irony!
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Yes, Dawkins seems to enjoy making his cake and eating it, and supposedly Dawkins asserts that no atheist philosophers have ever heard of William Lane Craig, but for some strange reason Peter Milican had one of Dr. Craig's books on hand and stated it was one of his favorites.
THen afterwards Dawkins took a cheap shot at Milican
/godzilla facepalm
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
"THen afterwards Dawkins took a cheap shot at Milican."
Do you have the link for that? I've not seen that.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheCartesianTheist
Do you have the link for that? I've not seen that.
yes I'll message you that, he even took a shot at John Lennox for no reason.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
This obsession of yours is no good.
PS - Was that the audience when there was some booing, old boy?
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
Except he hasn't, old boy. A string of non-sequiters is the best you can come up with? Shaking someone's hand makes someone "immoral". On what justification do you base that on.
Back to the drawing board, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Correction - it's 'non sequitur' - kiddo. ;)
PS. Accusing someone of non-sequiturs only to fail to demonstrate that even one was committed is the fallacy of assertion [your favourite fallacy it appears].
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Accusing someone of a non-sequitor does not = Atheism is true
Calling someone an old boy does not = Atheism is true
Stating X commited a false dichtomy with nothing to support your claim but emotion doesn't mean X commited a false dichtomy.
If these are the best arguments you got you need to be honest and admit you are trolling.
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
AikenHead is a Radio Five Live caller!! We should feel sorry for him.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
I wonder if he can refute this:
1.◊p → ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p] 2.◊p 3. ∴ ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p] 4. (◊p • ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p]) → ☐p 5. (◊p • ¬[◊p • ◊ ¬p]) 6. ☐p 7. ☐p → ☐g 8. ∴ ☐g
where p = God is perfect and g = God exists
TimelessApologist 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
Yep, that is the most convincing piece of evidence for God yet, old boy.
Keep it up.
:) LMFAO.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Wrong again, old boy. It is a habit of yours, isn't it.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TimelessApologist
Straw man responses yet again. I merely accused you of using a string of non-sequiters and a false di/trichotomy.
The issue is not whether "atheism is true", it is whether there is evidence or any good reasons for believing there is a God. There is not, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead I would maintain there is evidence / are good reasons for the existence of God. Among others: the beginning of the universe, the contigency of the universe, the finetuning of the initial conditions of the universe for intelligent embodied agents, the existence of objective moral values etc. Now ofcourse each of these facts can be worked out and defended in more detail, but I'd maintain that for each of these facts, they make the existence of God more probable.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
I disagree, of course. I am familar with these arguments put forward by theists, but none of them impress me, and most of them are arguments from incredulity. I do enjoy the fine-tuning argument. It is such an anthropomorphic view, and not a rational view. The universe is so fine tuned that the Earth will be toast in a couple of billion years time. If it is fine-tuned, it is not fine-tuned very well. Plus, there is nothing about objective (or not) morals that suggest God.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead Whether the earth "will be toast in a couple of billion years" doesn't refute the fine-tuning argument. If something is degrading, that doesn't show that it wasn't the result of design in the first place. My car will probably degrade in several descesenia, does that show that it wasn't designed?
GGDFan777 2 months ago 7
@GGDFan777
No, but I don't have to "refute" the fine-tuning argument, because I'm not arguing for it. YOU ARE. You have no evidence for it. My point was a perfectly valid question which you can't answer. If fine tuning is apparent, then why is the fine tuning destined to torch the Earth? If you are arguing for fine tuning, this is a conundrum for you. Not me, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead If your question wasn't meant as some sort of refutation of the argument, then that question becomes irrelevant. Moreover, I have shown that ur question makes assumptions that you haven't justified, (namely that 1. humans and their technology could not have found a way in all those billions of years to survive and/or 2. that if God designed the universe he could not still also intervene later)
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
That is just a series of special pleading and unsupported assumptions. You're dismissed, old boy. Further, I noticed the anthropomorphic view again - humans and their technology!
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead Therefore it was not a 'perfectly valid' question if it were meant as a question with any relevance to the fine-tuning argument. Moreover there is good evidence for fine-tuning (see for example the works of prof. Robin Collins)
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777 You have certinaly not demonstrated that my question was invalid. My question forced you to resort to special pleading and adding qualifiers to your unsupported assertion. It is very easy to quote from authority, ie look at the work of Victor Stenger for good evidence of no fine-tuning. You have not demonstrated any evidence of fine-tuning.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
If something is *not* degrading, that doesn't show that it was/wasn't the result of design in the first place. You simply put forward an argument from incredulity. Further, your car analogy is useless, since a car is "fine-tuned" to transport people for so many miles, so many years, not "fine-tuned" for life to exist.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
Moreover my 'car analogy' isn't useless, since I'm only using it to show that degradation doesn't necessarily entail that those things weren't designed in the first place (you don't deny that the car wasn't designed, nor do you deny that the car is degrading) Even granting your unjustified assumptions such that the universe is capable to sustain life 'only' for a couple of billion years, it's still true that the universe has to be fine tuned for life to exist for that finite amount of time.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
So let's get this straight. Now you are saying the universe is "fine-tuned" a little bit, for a finite time! You can keep on adding qualififers to your premise, but your premise has no foundation whatsoever. Your car analogy is still useless because is still doesn't demonstrate anything. BTW, I did say that the Earth would only be able to sustain life for a couple of billion years, which is true.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@GGDFan777 cancer does..
MrWaddefak 3 weeks ago
@MrWaddefak Can you explain how?
GGDFan777 3 weeks ago
@GGDFan777
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
MrWaddefak 3 weeks ago
@MrWaddefak
That's the logical argument from evil you're using there. You are aware that atheist philosophers have almost universally stopped using that argument since it's been demonstrated that logically it doesn't work are you not???
TheCartesianTheist 3 weeks ago
@MrWaddefak This arguments from evil fails for a number of reasons. First of all, you haven't shown that God couldn't have morally sufficient reasons for allowing the evils in the world. (see also: watch?v=Jb9CYYdxBQQ ) Moreover, I would maintain that evil is actually evidence for God's existence (see also: watch?v=PZylvupAhg8 ) For a fuller treatment about this objection read the chapter 'The Argument from Evil' by philosopher Stewart Goetz in the Backwell Companion to Natural Theology.
GGDFan777 3 weeks ago
@TheAikenHead Moreover, your objection assumes that human beings and their technological developments in 'a couple billion years' won't be such that they couldn't find a way to survive, who knows what we will be able to do in the future.
GGDFan777 2 months ago 2
@TheAikenHead Moreover, your objection also assumes that if God fine tuned the universe he couldn't also later still intervene (perhaps God will create a new heaven and a new earth before 'the earth will be toast'?). Your assumptions are groundless.
GGDFan777 2 months ago 5
@GGDFan777
Special pleading, old boy. You have no evidence a God will or can "intervene". So, actually, despite what you confidently say, my assertions are still standing.
PS - if a God has to intervene, isn't that an argument *against* fine-tuning? Nice try, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GGDFan777
Special pleading, old boy. You have no evidence a God will or can "intervene". So, actually, despite what you confidently say, my assertions are still standing.
PS - if a God has to intervene, isn't that an argument *against* fine-tuning? Nice try, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead You then say: "there is nothing about objective (or not) morals that suggest God."... Yes it does if the following premise is true: "If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist" and that premise is certainly plausile, for if God does not exist and we are just the result of blind evolution, there wouldn't be such a thing as objective good or evil.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GGDFan777
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GGDFan777
You have provided no evidence that morals are objective other than as a human construct. So, they are only "objective" if us humans think that. So, your premise collapses at the first hurdle. As for your last point, yes indeed, there is no such thing as objective good and evil outside of human constructs. At least, there is no evidence of any. You do not demonstrate anything with your question, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead As even Richard Dawkins writes: "...there is at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Why is Richard Dawkins wrong if God indeed does not exist? But I maintain there are objective values, and that objective good and evil does therefore exis. Therefore it follows logically that God does exists, cause without God there would be no such things as objective good or evil.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777
Flaw No. 1. You have not established whether objective values exist independent of humans making them objective. Flaw No. 2. You have not demonstrated how it flows logically that God exists because of Flaw No. 1. So, you have a double flaw there, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead I would defend the fact that objective moral values exist through moral experience. Through moral experience we apprehend a realm of objective moral values and we have no good reason to deny what we clearly perceive. As atheist philosopher Louise Antony explains “Any argument against the objective reality of moral values will be based on premises that are less obvious than the existence of objective moral values themselves.”
GGDFan777 2 months ago
@GGDFan777 "I would defend the fact that objective moral values exist through moral experience."
"Moral experience?" This is quite a weak point to mount your defense particularly since you are ignoring the mounting scientific evidence of the physical origins of moral and pro-social behaviors.
Moral values exist because of brain architecture and activity. For evidence of this, please paste the following ids into pubmed(dot)com and read the articles:
22015110
22265852
22158823
21677650
Greyclouds40 1 month ago
@Greyclouds40 I'm not sure if anything you said refutes the claim that objective moral values exist so what is your point is here? Do you agree with me that objective moral values exist or not? See also question 36 ("Our Grasp of Objective Moral Values" ) at WLC's reasonablefaith (dot) org website.
GGDFan777 1 month ago
@GGDFan777 "I'm not sure if anything you said refutes the claim that objective moral values exist "
Of course not; however, we have observed such objective moral values within animal species and we can attribute their development to social cognition, social learning and biochemical reactions within the brain.
Given these physical properties, the necessity of a "god" to impart moral values seems less relevant. The evidence stands: physical processes impart social behaviors/reactions.
Greyclouds40 1 month ago
@TheAikenHead God's existence then 'flows logically' from both premises:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
2. objective moral values do exist
3. Therefore God exist
This is valid deductive reasoning. Now if you still don't accept that objective moral values exist then this argument won't work for you obviously and we should focus on the other arguments.
GGDFan777 2 months ago
"its perpetrator should admire William Lane Craig".
Sorry dude, but to us atheists, admiring WLC does put you in a very bad light. No offence, old boy.
"found time for interviews"
Yes, for a TV programme he was involved with! Sinking in yet?
"it was the question of finding time"
Why are you so obsessed with how Richard Dawkins "finds time". It is his bloody business what he does with his time.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Wow - we've got ourselves a real Dawkins Disciple here!
It does not matter about these mini-debates being for TV. I am pointing out that Dawkins finds time for every raving North-American Creationist out there but suddenly can't find the time for a professional philosopher.
I can understand why you're so obviously angry and defensive.
"The majority of atheists"??? Who are they exactly? Do they have formal qualifications in philosophy per chance? Didn't think so.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Disciple? Who has made a video about Dawkins? Not me. *YOU*. Oh, and as an atheist, I'm sooooo used to accusations of being "angry". Why not "strident"? Isn't that the usual put down?
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"Kirk Cameron"
LOL. Hold on, wasn't that for TV again?
"he [Craig] is a well respected academic"
By whom? Not by me, he isn't. Certainly the majority of atheists don't rate him as an academic at all.
"I hope you debate him since I would like to remember you as a great scientist, and not a lousy philosopher".
LOL. This just confirms the view that how good Craig is at debating has nothing to do with his validity. The science will keep on moving us forward, Craig's "philosophy" will not.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"there is that long interview with Wendy Wright"
That was for the TV programme. Exactly what I mentioned earlier. Gee, she was really awful, wasn't she? Completely ignorant and irritating person.
"Ted Haggard"
Again, for the TV programme! Nice try, though. Did you see the bit when Haggard went nuts because Dawkins implied that "his children" were primates. Classic TV! He was quite unpleasant towards Dawkins, IIRC.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Did you know that Dawkins interviewed Alister McGrath for that programme but did not put ANY of the conversation in?
;)
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
"it is interesting that he calls Craig a professional debater"
Why? That is what Craig does. His "debates" show that he uses all the professinal tricks of a debater, including rhetoric, the gish gallop, logical fallcies and misrepresentation. Sounds and looks like a "professional debater" to me. Perhaps you think this description highlights the fact Craig's arguments have very little credibility.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Gosh, someone needs to take a deep breath in here!
The point being made is that Craig is far more than that. Dawkins means it as a slur which is why he cannot even bring himself to admit Craig is a Professor [a title which Craig did not buy - UNLIKE Dawkins by the way!!]. Also Craig has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and is held in high esteem by the vast majority of atheist philosophers.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist "Also Craig has hundreds of peer-reviewed articles and is held in high esteem by the vast majority of atheist philosophers."
Vast majority? Sources, please? Many probably admit he is a good debater, but not many value his arguments. Further, philosophical peer review is no match for scientific peer review. Philosophy can't go through the tests, demonstrations and observation process science can. Nice try, though.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead Do you study a science (major or otherwise)?
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD Yes, biology. BTW, I notice you have a unicorn as your logo. Do you believe in them?
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead You must have misunderstood me; as I mean a real science. (jokes.) Well no, but I do with they are real because they are awesome.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
@SPR4GOD
I'm sure it sounded coherent to you when you typed it. Sobered up yet, old boy?
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
Ahhh - now I know where you're coming from and what level of debate you're at since you do your research on moral issues from Radio 5 Live call in!! I can just imagine you on the end of the phone calling in. It all makes perfect sense now. Thanks. That was funny.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist
Why do theists always jump to the wrong conclusion?
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead Wow, someone can't take a joke; but then again biology is the butt of the joke for physicists.
SPR4GOD 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SPR4GOD
"Wow, someone can't take a joke; but then again biology is the butt of the joke for physicists."
As a biologist, I must contend - it's primarily evolutionary biology which is the butt of joke of physicists and mathematicians.
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
"that should be Dr. Craig"
Get over yourself! Oh, and you are very generous describing Richard Swinburne as a "philosopher". You obviously still get the thing about Dawkins being polite. He is trying not to say "fuck off", Mr. Craig. Understand now, Old Boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
I got banned from this site long ago haha...I only had an account for about a week and a half.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
Haha. I can imagine them not liking you somehow! Logical postivism is rife on that site so they won't like philosophers there.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Of course, especially when you have MR. dawkins and his groupies there to censor everything! Yes, unfortunately some people that are still stuck in the stone age thinking that is logical positivism. Only delusional naturalists and positivists are allowed, anything else is prohibited. I'm sorry about your "unfortunate'' experience at the richard dawkins foundation. (Although you have not lost much by being blocked, trust me) HAHA!
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
Yes, I agree. Being on there I had the feeling that there was a definite cult-feel about it and that getting through to anyone in a rational way was going to be impossible. The way everyone was so incredibly defensive about Dawkins was very boring too. Like he should not even be questioned. What was weird was that most of them were extremely anti-philosophy. Even most scientism leaves some room for philosophy but it was funny how most there disparaged it completely.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist ''Cult-feel" describes the site correctly. I couldn't have said it better. You're right it is impossible to reason with them. I was arguing with individuals how naturalism refutes itself and before there was a consensus reached, I was ''mysteriously'' blocked by the moderators of that site. You're right, they are anti-philosophy, yet at the same time their material is rampant with philosophical implications. Quite the censorship! No wonder they're philosophy is so premature.
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle It's "their" philosophy, mate. Of course, I could accuse you lot of being anti-science.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@07Aristotle
"''Cult-feel" describes the site correctly. I couldn't have said it better."
I think this is spot on. There does appear to be a group-think mentality to dawkinsnet which borders on the hysterical in many cases - as ably demonstrated by our friend TheAikenHead and his run-of-the-mill Dawkinsisms.
Calenfeyn41 2 months ago
@Calenfeyn41 ''his run-of-the-mill Dawkinsisms.''
LOL!
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist "I couldn't have said it better."
*YOU*
07Aristotle 2 months ago
@07Aristotle Mr. Dawkins is very good at sniffing out trolls.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
"Dawkins goes to America all the time to interview Young Earth Creationists".
Does he? It is not often he does that, unless you are referring to a TV programme he was involved with. You would expect that to happen. I can sense a series of ad homs developing here.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago 2
When Quentin Smith says William Lane Craig is a "leading philosopher", I knew this video had no credibility. The narrator also points out that Dawkins doesn't meet Craig's qualification for debate, ie he lacks a qualification in philosophy. But then why is Craig so obsessed with Dawkins? Desperation? It is worth pointing out Craig does not have a qualification in mathematics, science, or evo devo. Keep making us laugh, theists!
TheAikenHead 2 months ago 2
@TheAikenHead
"When Quentin Smith says William Lane Craig is a "leading philosopher", I knew this video had no credibility."
Oh yeh? Why's that then?
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist Because Craig is not considered a leading philosopher. That is why, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 months ago
@TheAikenHead
"Because Craig is not considered a leading philosopher."
Because you say so? So a leading atheist philosopher [Quentin Smith] calls Craig a "leading philosopher" but you disagree with Smith and, for no reason given, you decide your evaluation is better?
What's the bet? That you've read more of Craig's peer reviewed philosophical papers or that Smith has? Bets please...
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
Dawkins is a lousy philosopher, you were band for being honest, the wrong kind of honest
You said qualified to speak about philosophy, isn't that an argument from authority ?
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin No, that is a different thing.
Slly atheist doggins purports to be giving expert testimony in the field of Philosophy. Pointing out that he is not an expert in that field is not a logical fallacy.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne If the lucasian professor of mathematics at cambridge university, or his toilet cleaner say's 1+2=3 their argument is either valid or Invalid independent of the qualifications hight weight shoe size ect, of that individual, the person is quite irrelevant, in logic the only important thing is the argument at hand
RevDevilin 2 months ago
@RevDevilin No shit, sherlock.
However, supposedly "expert" testimony from a non-expert is to be rejected.
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne Again the only important thing is the argument at hand
RevDevilin 2 months ago
Richard Dawkins is an embarrassment, especially to professional and trained philosophers who are also atheists. He was taken to task recently in the pages of The Guardian by two of his fellow atheists for ducking Dr. Craig and attacking him personally in print rather than appear on stage. As with all of the so-called "new atheists," Dawkins is not interested in honesty or rigorous debate, nor is he interested in really understanding what he claims to critique and reject.
TheOrthodoxSteven 2 months ago
Dawkins.... what a pansy!!
Birdieupon 2 months ago
Good video - I just had three atheists block me because I had them cornered and they had no rational response to my reply, so they they deemed it fitting to censor me rather than continue any further debate with me. Challenge the atheist into a corner, and he will make a last comment concerning how ignorant you are before blocking you and not allowing you a chance to respond in a last ditch effort to save face.
BT3701 2 months ago
I always wondered if the RDF website allowed opposing points of view. Apparently they do, but only within very narrow parameters.
I'm not terribly surprised, as I guess you aren't either. The Dawkins fanbois are EXTREMELY doctrinarie, and any criticism of their Fearless Leader is going to be construed as an attack.
stallion4life 2 months ago
The atheist is always whining about "free speech."
Apparently, the atheist only wants free speech for himself, not for those who disagree with him, or for those who present good reasons to accept the validity of Theism and reject atheist Dogma as unscientific, irrational hogwash.
Cool video -- thanks for uploading!
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago
@1GodOnlyOne
Great latest video yourself. That is ANOTHER example of the free speech issue. I've had three atheists warn me not to say anything about Hitchens so close to his dying and yet Hitchens himself said some horrendous things about other people within hours of their dying. The only reason not to is to not stoop as low as he did and out of respect for Hitchen's family and his brother who is a Christian. Atheists just love hypocrisy I guess.
TheCartesianTheist 2 months ago
@TheCartesianTheist I always love your videos, Brother -- keep up the good work, and God bless you!
=)
1GodOnlyOne 2 months ago