Responding to the New Atheists- Greg Koukl - Part 2

[pimpymcdougall]

He lost me within the first 10 seconds when he said 'so-called' scientific view then goes on to say resurrections are possible.

To say something is possible without evidence is ridiculous and shows how gullible his audience is for not asking questions. In fact, I say a head nod. Try thinking for yourself, not just nodding your head when you hear something you agree with.

[DrAndrewC]

@pimpymcdougall You say that "To say something is possible without evidence is ridiculous", but I notice that you haven't given any evidence for this statement, so I assume that you are being ridiculous.

Point of correction: he does give evidence for the resurrection of Christ - because the claim is a historic claim it requires the proof of historic corroboration which he amply supplies.

[pimpymcdougall]

@DrAndrewC What do I have to give evidence to support? That he shows no evidence for an outrageous claim he states as fact? The proof of no proof is in the video itself.

He also says nothing more of resurrection after the first ten seconds of the video. I am going to assume that his evidence would be the bible and I think we all know that book is not reliable as proof for anything. Saying otherwise undermines your own argument considering the vast amounts of contradictions and inaccuracies.

[nicksynnz]

He hasn't knocked Dawkins down as this man is limited in his intelligence and credulity. Dawkins argument was the whole book not a summary of the book. Even if he did knock Dawkins down, it would not give one iota of evidence of a god.

[thcollicutt]

@mistajames3213, sounds to me like you'd rather not convince anyone and smugly pat yourself on the back for people not recognizing your brilliance. Still comes off ad anyone who can't convince you is automatically wrong. Strikes me as a bit narcissistic but I don't have to live with you.

[afielsch]

what a tard.

[hutchings000]

Apologist for evolution???? ahem...

I guess i'm an Apologist for Gravity... sigh...

[TheGreaterGood80]

@hutchings000 I'm an apologist for the heliocentric theory....oh wait! Christians forgot they once opposed that one too

[mistajames3213]

The primary issue here is the burden of proof issue. It is not the skeptic's job to prove the impossibility of resurrection (if the materialist position is correct, living things are simply matter/energy patterns which are, in theory, replicable). It is the proponent's responsibility to satisfy the burden of proof if they expect their claims to be taken seriously. Attempting to Deflect an atheist's attention from one's own burden of proof is fundamentally dishonest and frustrating.

[DrAndrewC]

But there are at least 11 classic proofs for the Resurrection of Christ. To simply appeal to materialism's claim that nothing beyond Physical Positivism is real does not actually refute the proofs offered for the Resurrection of Christ. Prof. Antony Flew has an excellent discussion about this in his book "There Is A God".

[mistajames3213]

Does Flew offer evidence or logical proof? I'm unsure how you can provide a "proof" proper for an event, so I'm assuming a former. (link would be appreciated)

[DrAndrewC]

You raise a good point about the nature of "proof". The nature of historical proofs is different to that of mathematical proofs. Flew does make an excellent case in his book. It's not available online but is available from Amazon.

[pauljn147]

If there were any 'proofs' for the resurrection then there would be no real argument against Christianity. The proofs of Physics are accepted worldwide by scientists of any faith, as are biological proofs when citizens of any religion accept antibiotics. If there were 'real' proofs then nobody worldwide would be athiest, Muslim or Hindu. If you were a real doctor then you would know this surely? Proofs convince non-believers of your argument. That's why they're called proofs.

[thcollicutt]

@mistajames3213 You are right. The skeptic does not have to defend is/her position. Unless they want to convince someone else. There is a difference between defending your right to hold a view, and convincin someone else they should adopt your point of view. When you try to convince someone else, you have the burden of proof of explaining why the other person should change their mind.

[mistajames3213]

@thcollicutt The atheist holds that the theistic position is unjustified, and thus should be rejected. This does not necessitate a positive conclusion on our part. If the skeptic postulates a specific positive view (as we tend to) it needs to be justified, and it generally is.

The major problem is that there is no room in the (standard) theistic ontology for unexplained concepts. They create false dichotomies to justify their stance, without attempting to derive new hypotheses from evidence..

[thcollicutt]

@mistajames3213 You can hold your position all you want. My point is if you want someone to change their position, the way to do it is not to tell them they are wrong and that they have to justify it to you. They have no reason to have to justify to you. If you want them to change their mind you need to explain to them why you are right and they are wrong. Having a discussion in which you want someone to accept your position rarely happens in debate format with formal rules.

[mistajames3213]

@thcollicutt You don't understand how logic works.

The problem isn't that they can't justify it to me. The problem is that they can't logically justify it to anyone, including themselves. That is a problem with the belief. There is no reason to consider an unjustified belief more or less real than blatant fabrications. Logic is a bit of a bitch that way.

The position of the atheist is that the god belief is unsubstantiated, and thus should be rejected. Simple, and easy to justify.

[mistajames3213]

@thcollicutt The relevant position is that their beliefs are unsubstantiated. That's it.

There are seperate, specific inductive arguments that refute particular religious belief systems, but there's no reason to use them if you can demonstrate that the theistic argument is unsubstantiated.

[MrAllthewayornoway]

Man, its all Adam and Eves fault, they got us thrown out of eden, and now we cant dance around there anymore!

[darris321]

do you, philos71, honestly believe that they treat them as gods? do you honestly believe they worship christopher hitchens? they can't just really really really like their book?

[Fishmungaloyd]

Of course we have to worship them, we have to be blasphemers, not just heathens lol.

[darris321]

just because a person is an atheist doesnt mean that every argument they have is directed towards proving god wrong.

I can argue that christianity is evil without arguing that it is false.

The epitome of circular logic btw is the bible. God is true because the bible says so and the bible is true because God wrote it.

[Fishmungaloyd]

very true, if god were real i still wouldn't worship him. Have you read that book about him? You'd think with that many authors you'd find one book of the bible that makes him out to be a nice chap.

[voskresene]

Is there any world outlook that isn't circular on some level at the end of the day?

[mistajames3213]

Um... yes.

I am currently typing on my computer. I am sipping on a cup of coffee as well. Nothing circular about that.

[sjd198302]

explain to me exactly, what part of the argument is flawed? dont just accuse him of flawed arguments because you choose not to agree with him. tell us what you feel is flawed.

[sjd198302]

no matter how silly dawkins or any atheist apologist looks, the youtube atheist will have nothing to say but "this guy is stupid." It seems like Dawkins and Hitchens become gods to these people. Wake Up! Atheism is based on nothing.

[SAsgarters]

Because he's talking to people who want to listen to the type of crap he's spewing out.

[delphintrust]

Dawkins is advancing the conclusion that "God most certainly does not exist" on what exactly?

That he can ask who designed the designer and then that Darwin has an ingenious theory that might work?

Neither are good arguments for his conclusion that God does not exist.

Everyone needs to believe something I suppose.

I prefer to believe in something that has at least some good arguments - so I'll continue to believe God does exist I think.

[converse02]

I agree with Dawkins.

Dawkins basically destroyed the argument from design using the the argument from evolution. Since there is NO design, God (the supposed "Designer"), therefore, almost certainly does not exists.

Really, it isn't that hard to understand. The lecturer needs better reading comp skills.

[Katalyzt]

Apologist for evolution? Interesting, I have [the god delusion] opened to chapter 4(Pg. 157-59 hardcover), and I have noticed that this speaker has clearly misquoted and left out contextual parts of Dawkins' 6 summarizing points which skews at least to the audience what Dawkins' true key arguments/points are. Aaahh, and #5, Dawkins does not say at all! Hmmm, it seems we have another charlatan on our hands.

Katalyzt

[ThatChristian]

Will there be a part three?

[lolgepwnt]

I have assessed his argument and found that he lacks understanding of the scientific method. He also seems to be hypocritical condescending a lack of evidence from Dawkin's when his fundemental assumption for his topics are completely unproven, and more so will always be unproven. Debating the existence of a god is so last century.

[veritaslogos]

time doesn't negate truth, nor does it dissapate facts.