The Run Away Atheist (and Dawkins and Grayling React Like Cowards)

[fivethirty]

atheists are all illogical cowards!! all of them!!!

[MrAdvancedAtheist]

Craig has invested his hopes in an ancient doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who allegedly rose from the dead. That gives me sufficient reason to ignore him.

[Cre8tvMG]

@MrAdvancedAtheist So your reasons are entirely based on ad hominem and straw man arguments? For example, you discount his support of a rational Christianity because of your presupposed prejudice that Christianity is not rational. That's not a logical defense, that's just name calling and assuming the conclusion in the initial position. Sloppy, and not sufficient.

[MrAdvancedAtheist]

@Cre8tvMG I don't shrug off Buddhism because it makes some empirically testable claims which don't depend on an historical Buddha's existence or authority. Google for the artlcle "Buddhists really are happier" for some recent scientific evidence. I also don't shrug off the existence of the mathematician Archimedes because several of his mathematical treatises have survived, and nobody can get away with forging those unless he also had first rate mathematical ability.

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG said "you discount his support of a rational Christianity because of your presupposed prejudice that Christianity is not rational."

Christianity is based on a book that says that fire-breathing dragons, unicorns and witches are real. Also, bird blood sprinkled on a leper will cure the leprosy. Disobedient children, gays, brides that the grooms think aren't virgins, and anyone caught working on the Sabbath should be killed - and witches burned.

That's not prejudice. It is fact.



[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 First, from a purely logical standpoint, IF God created the universe, he CAN make whatever rules he wants and we have no standing to complain, right? Your argument against alleged* punishments is based on an absolute moral standard - which no atheist can logically claim. Second, I've read all the bible repeatedly and saw nothing about unicorns, or burning witches. *What verse is that in?

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG 1) Unicorns : Ps. 22:21, 29:6; Job 39:9–12. Num 23:22, 24:8; Deut. 33:7. Read it and weep.

You only SAY you've read the Bible (unless yours had some particularly nonsensical pages missing).

2) It IS far-fetched that an animal could breathe fire. Your willingness to believe that, simply because a few unidentified desert herders, illiterate and ignorant of even such things as the fact that unicorns and witches are not real, supposedly wrote a book containing such nonsense? Telling.

[ndrthrdr1]

@ndrthrdr1 Also, notice that in King James, and previous versions. it says unicorns. In some more recent versions, the animal is changed to something else, with no justification for why another animal was substituted.  It is obvious what the motivation for this change is based on. Original versions were obviously written by superstitious people. The clergy, who live on tithe money, didn't want the faithful to stop paying their rent for them.

The Bible's not credible if we read before belief.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 " the animal is changed to something else, with no justification for why another animal was substituted. It is obvious what the motivation for this change is based on." -- Again, the translation was changed as they learned more. That means that, yes, the people who translated thought it meant unicorns may have lived long ago. And no, it does not mean that the BIBLE says there were unicorns, just some confused people. Your use of the word 'obvious' is mistaken.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Ps 22:21,29:6, Job, etc: "unicorn' is a bad translation in the King James from the 1600s. The original Hebrew word rehame means 'wild oxen'. They just didn't know that at the time. It was the 1600s, man. Lighten up and think.Your problem is that your aim is to find a flaw, rather than to find the truth in the matter. That's like seeing a misprint ad for ipads for $4.99 and expecting it to be the real price. No one claims the KJV translation is perfect. (Well, maybe a few nuts.)

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 I thought witches (or now wiccans) were real? Are you saying wiccans don't exist? The bible doesn't claim witches fly around on brooms, it claims that they try to get powers from spirits other than the God of Abraham. Isn't that basic wiccan theology? The writers of the bible knew this just as they knew that 'rehame' meant wild ox, just as you know 'bitchin' means 'bad' means 'good', but 500 years from now a translator might have a little trouble with it.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 And for breathing fire, biologists will tell you that an animal with a methane bladder and some ignition source (a chemical burst like a bombardier beetle?) could easily belch fire. Not like Lord of the Rings, but like a carnival sideshow man. There's no evidence of one, but we don't have preserved organs in fossils, just bones and vague hints. It is entirely possible, though entirely unproved for or against. If you say it's nonsense, you're unscientific and dogmatic.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 When I read the bible, I read it to understand the meaning, not to find the first apparent flaw and then gloat. So I cross reference with the original words in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic, and read more recent and more literal translations, not first attempts at an English translation now 400 years out of date. For example,

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG said "...an absolute moral standard - which no atheist can logically claim."

Actually,I do claim that sexually molesting little kids is an absolute moral wrong. The Bible doesn't even mention it.

I also claim that enslaving people and beating them is an absolute moral wrong. The Bible says it was OK in the Old T., as long as the beaten slave could walk after two days.

I claim that killing others simply due to different beliefs is an absolute moral wrong. It was OK/ordered in Bible.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 "I do claim that sexually molesting little kids is an absolute moral wrong. " The problem here is that as an atheist (you are, right?) your moral code can be no more valid than the moral code of the molester. Both have equal 'legal' and philosophical standing, if there is nothing above human whim to define evil. And in the Bible, sexual contact is clearly only for the married. That automatically precludes molestation.

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG said "Both have equal 'legal' and philosophical standing, if there is nothing above human whim to define evil. "

Atheists don't kill for a god, piously. Religious people do.

This is a straw man (the atheist who evaluates the worth of alternatives on a whim).

A molester isn't driven to molest due to lack of religious belief. Molesters are simply mentally disturbed individuals, regardless of any presense or lack of religious beliefs. Remember Catholic Priests? Warren Jeffs?

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Atheists killed over 200 million in the 20th century, more than all previous religious wars combined. Atheism says that humanity is a meaningless though pleasant mistake in the cosmos. Christianity says everyone matters enough to God that he would give his life in their place, and that we are to do likewise. There is a difference between religion (like the pharisees who religiously killed Jesus) and faith in a loving God. If you can't see it, please forgive my poor example.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 And you still haven't (and can't) give any support for any moral absolutes from an atheistic position. Go ahead, I'm waiting. On what authority other than your distaste is molestation wrong? I can say it is wrong because God demands kindness and purity. You have no way to establish your distaste for it is any more valid than the molesters appetite for it.

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG said "On what authority other than your distaste is molestation wrong?"

The physical and emotional effects on the victim are easily recognizable as negative, and decrease the quality of the one life we can all be sure the victim will have. Understanding that the quality of life that we experience in our society depends partly on the degree of kindness we show to each other, and the level of suffering we each experience, the logical goal is to maximize good/minimize suffering.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 "The physical and emotional effects.." I understand all this and agree completely on the negative effects. But you still are starting with a theistic assumption: that humanity matters. In a materialistic universe, all things are predetermined at the big bang through endless cause and effect: there is no free will, no right or wrong, no choice. We are oddly sentient, with the illusion of choice, but as locked into cause and effect as a rock. Why must humanity matter?

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 And your argument also must conclude that if the 'victim' enjoys it, then no harm no foul. There is no negative effect, so it must be morally good, right? So 'pleasurable molestation' would be condoned by the atheist who was logically consistent with the position you propose. Which I am sure is not what you mean to imply. So what is there beyond your personal preference for more pleasure and less suffering that makes your morality absolute? (Remember that I do believe in absolutes.)

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Also, your objections to the actions of God in the Old Testament are based on a moral objection to killing, genocide, restraining behaviors, etc. But you have no logical standing as a created being to have a 'higher moral standard' than the creator. You are using a theistic position (the existence of moral absolutes) to argue against the existence of God, which is terribly illogical and unsupportable. (And I agree with your moral objections, just not your authority to have any.)

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMGsaid "you have no logical standing as a created being to have a 'higher moral standard' than the creator."

You have no evidence that I am a "created" being, other than by my two biological parents. That's where babies actually come from. No magical *poof* and I appear.

I don't steal, for instance, because I know that the more of us don't steal from each other, the better our society will be. Also, I feel empathy for those around me. I don't cherry pick a book, I use common sense.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Right - I don't offer proof you are created, just stating that IF you are created, you can't complain about God's moral code because he has the authority to set the rules of his creation; whereas IF you are 'uncreated' (random evolution in a solely material existence) then you have nothing other than your personal preference on which to base any moral code: so your morality can't have any greater 'authority' than a molester's. Either way you can't complain re: God on moral grounds.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 PS - thanks for taking the time to respond with well thought out answers and challenges. it's so much more fun than the name calling I see lots of times. I really enjoy honest debate and respect someone who can disagree strongly and still be civil and on point. You're way ahead of the pack!

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG I'm liking this, too, and would like to continue, but I have Political Science homework due Monday, and I'd better get it done early to be sure it all gets done. I shall return. :)

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 OK, have fun. (And don't just assume 'blame Bush' is the right answer, even if that's what your professor wants you to say.) Enjoy the weekend and I'll look for your next post.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 I also hate molestation, enslaving, beating, and killing the innocent. The difference is that as a theist, I have something solid to base my morals on. Yours is nothing more than a whim, just leftover western Christian mores. If you were raised by rapists to rape, you might see it as a good. But as an atheist, it is still just a personal or societal whim, not an absolute. On what authority do you base your claim of absolutes, besides a personal distaste??

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Third, I think there's one mention of a fire breathing creature, Leviathan, which is not called a dragon. The description sounds more like a large crocodile. But even circus performers can breathe fire (if they take a swig of alcohol first). It's not farfetched even for an evolutionist that somewhere in the past a fire breathing creature could exist. That is FAR less improbable than the initial combination of amino acids which make cells possible. (1 over 10 to the 950th)

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG The 1 over 10 to the 950th figure comes from apologetics, not science, and fails to take into account the fact that there were billions of billions of opportunities per microsecond, multiplied by microseconds/year multiplied by perhaps a billion years in Earth's early history.

If you Google K-T boundary, you'll see how we know that around 65 million years passed between last big dinosaurs and first humans. Created on the same day, or the same "day=1000 years"? not even close.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 I've got no problem with the Genesis creation account being poetic, not literal. As a playwright I understand the need to explain difficult concepts briefly and use metaphors that express truth without being literal. I can easily assume that God is able to do that as well. Also, if ALL molecules in the universe were combined at the maximum possible rate (given proximity needs, etc) there is still a probability of less than 1 in 10 to the 50th, a statistical zero.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 PS - you make a common mistake of confusing "laws for the Jewish people to impose on themselves in the Old Testament period" with the mandates Jesus gave Christians in the New Testament. We are told to love one another, serve, be kind and generous, forgive, and lay down our life for our enemies. It is certainly NOT 'Christian' to try to impose Jewish law on non believers! Anyone with basic Bible knowledge should understand that. Christians abhor that idea as much as you do.

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG Matthew 5:17 says that Jesus didn't come to change the law.

How many Republican Christians demand that the government stop killing our enemies, threatening to vote straight Democratic tickets until the American government complies? Lay down our lives for our enemies?

How many anti-Choice Christians demand an end to the death penalty?  How is it possible that unicorns and witches are real for Jews and imaginary for everyone else?

By the way, Jesus (and most others there, WERE Jews).

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 He didn't come to do away with the law but to fulfil it. ie, a criminal sentence that has been fulfilled is confirmed as valid but the debt is paid so the criminal is free. An acquittal on the other hand says that the sentence was invalid. Jesus didn't invalidate the law, he completed it and made it unnecessary. You have a lot of common misconceptions about biblical theology. Probably our fault as a church for not being more clear and kind about it. Sorry.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 We're not anti- choice, just pro life. When you were unborn we were being arrested to make sure that you had the chance at life. And to most thinking people there is a difference between killing an innocent person (ie, born or unborn child) and taking a life in self defense, in war, or in just societal retribution for a heinous crime.

The Jews didn't believe in unicorns. A bad translator in the 1600s did. Get it straight.

Are you still saying witches/wiccans aren't real??

[ndrthrdr1]

@Cre8tvMG said "When you were unborn we were being arrested to make sure that you had the chance at life"

You have no valid reason to believe that your crimes and jail time had any influence on my mother's decision to give birth.

Wiccans are a very small group of magical thinkers who have unfounded beliefs (not based on any empirical evidence). Harmless but deluded.

Witches with "powers" aren't real., because their "powers" don't produce empirically measurable effects. Just superstition. 

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 Please note I didn't say witches have real power, just that they seek them from a different source precluded from Jews. I don't suggest that abortion protestors affected your mother's choice, only that the pro choice (not necessarily Christian) goal is to make sure everyone who starts as an innocent fetus has a guaranteed right to live. The point is that preserving innocent life is not inconsistent with support for the death penalty for the guilty.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 As for laying down our lives, the 20 million Iraqis and Afghans who were freed form religious and political tyrants by the blood of American soldiers might have a different view of America's involvement in their nation. And America gives more to build economies and provide economic help to the world than all other nations combined. Even rebuilding Japan and Germany after WWII. Not all war is unjust. All war is a tragedy, just not as tragic as capitulation to tyranny.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 As for laying down our lives, the 20 million Iraqis and Afghans who were freed form religious and political tyrants by the blood of American soldiers might have a different view of America's involvement in their nation. And America gives more to build economies and provide economic help to the world than all other nations combined. Even rebuilding Japan and Germany after WWII. Not all war is unjust. All war is a tragedy, just not as tragic as capitulation to tyranny.

[Cre8tvMG]

@ndrthrdr1 "By the way, Jesus (and most others there, WERE Jews)."

What is your point here? Every Christian knows that. It's no revelation to us, so why do you insert it at the end as though it were significant. It's like saying 'By the way, the Pope IS Catholic you know.' Well CHUH! ;-) The only thing I think I said about the Jews is that their law applied to them, not to foreigners around them, and that Christians do NOT intend to impose Jewish law on the world.

[Lordofallremembersus]

The Atheists commenting on this video are making me ROFL...lol it's funny how u all retreat somewhere to lick ur wounds =)

[robvlob]

Dr Craig doesn't show the cowardice like atheists do? But if you try to debate his videos on DrWLC channel the channel blocks & deletes any comments that don't praise DrWLC from his dubious debating style.

Not a surprise at all generally those that have weak arguments want to silence those that don't

[foxlake02]

@robvlob I had the same experience on drcraigvideos channel. I was graced with approval for a comment or two but once I started asking the tuff questions I got blocked. The irony is that rebuttals to my comments were approved for publication while I was blocked. This kind of cowardice shows me that his arguments are intellectually bankrupt. These people just want to preach to the choir. They are not interested in an open discussion or free exchange of ideas.

[Christheatheist1]

More fundie projection. Doy

[Fishqueen1972]

But what is funny. I have actually seen Richard Dawkins debate Craig in a group debate. Both debators specifically addressed eachother in the debate as well. So this video isn't entirely accurate.

[DarkEmergence]

@Fishqueen1972 Oh, I think the uploader knows perfectly that there's dishonesty in his video. Maybe we should challenge Criag to call in to The Atheist Experience and randomly call him a coward every day he doesn't appear on it.

[Fishqueen1972]

Lol. Shelly Kagan kicked WLC ass and I just watched a debate where a guy named Dacey kicked his ass too. Craig is a gifted debater because he knows how to deceive with his arguments.