With these public debates, you have to have a standard and well established neutral format, as Dr. Craig insisted on, or the debaters will just run over each other and get side-lined off of the debate topic.
The topic of this debate was "Is God a Delusion?", not "Is the God of Christianity (or Dr. Craig's God) a Delusion?".
Dr. Cooke wants to debate without rules or format like a lunch room argument.
Very little can be gained from that kind of a "lack of format" in a public venue like this.
@ginganz13@ginganz13 I did listen, and I stand by my statement. Dr. Cooke wanted to deviate from the standard debate format so that he could try to dilute the core subject of argument.
He even wanted to dismiss his rebuttal and start taking questions early on.
He says that he doesn't want to get into a "He said, she said" argument, referring to Dr. Craig's use of quotes from other scholars to support his arguments, but the fact is that this is just good debating.
@signmanbob2 No he very specifically wanted a dsicussion about "common ground" so they weren't "talking past each other" something that encompasses how both sides could recognise how they can live "good productive lives". He neither said nor inferred that he wanted a structure-less "lunch room argument" or to "dilute the core subject of the argument".
Craigs intellect & technique are 'interesting' but the substance has been comprehensively debunked. Would be nice to see it used in other ways.
@ginganz13 "Living Good Productive Lives" is not the subject of the debate. A debate on living "good productive lives" needs to be addressed between two atheists or two Christians within their own paradigm of thought and understanding. Since living a good productive life for the atheist is preparation for extinction and non-existence (he wants to be remembered as good), and for the christian, it is preparation for eternity (he wants to be approved by God).
@signmanbob2 -Jesus taught understanding & inclusiveness - the polar opposite of your assertion. The assertion about purpose is ridiculous, it assumes narcism & nihilism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) - that is all.
The idea that preparing for a so far un-proven 'after-life' is 'productive' is false, especially as they don't really believe it - watch them wail & cry when one of them dies - if they thought it was the gateway to eternal bliss why do they wear seat-belts?
@ginganz13 Sir you have not witnessed a true Christian exit this life. I was friends with a young lady who was dying of cancer and had a daughter who was still a tottler.
In her Christian faith, she prepared her young family. Even leaving her husband a "to-do" list for her young daughter. She made videos of herself for her young daughter to watch later in her life, that would assure her that her mommy is well and with Jesus.
Read John 14:6 and still tell me that is inclusive.
@signmanbob2 You haven't replied yet without making a false assertion. I've seen both - Despite the promises made to the religious, the people at both services seemed to have exactly the same attitude to avoiding finding out for sure about the after-life for as long as possible.
Gal 3:28 - we're all Jesus - sounds pretty inclusive to me. John 14:6 - we get to the big man through him.
@ginganz13 Please don't quote the Bible out of context. Read Gal 3:26, 27 and 29. Paul is only talking to believers in Jesus "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ". That's not inclusive of all. Only those baptized with the Holy Spirit through Jesus.
If you are drowning and someone throws a life preserver and you choose not to take it, being rescued will be non-inclusive. It won't include you. It will only include those who choose to take the life preserver that is offered.
@signmanbob2 If you're going to get pedantic about the bible, shouldn't your 'true christians' follow it to the letter - like the instructions in Leviticus, kings, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Judges ect about rape, infanticide, sex slavery, genocide, incest? Judgement of character is usually made on the worst moral act, especially in law for very good reasons. Contradictions asside the bible fails miserably in this respect.
@ginganz13 I'm not going to argue the Bible with an atheist, since it is a book written to believers or those searching. A hard-core non-believer naturally would not understand it. I'm just asking that if you are going to use it for quotations, you quote it in context.
@signmanbob2 Another false assertion - whats not to understand about a stoneage text, that it has horrific moral standards that are now (thankfully) ilegal due to progress. Isn't claiming to be a 'true christian' among the thousands of denominations a bit conceited? How do you know you are right?
The fact is you too are an atheist - about the 99% of other gods that have existed.
@ginganz13 You contradict yourself by saying that I am 99% atheist. If "atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)" as you say it is, and I have abundant belief in God, then I can't be any percentage, an atheist. It's like saying I'm almost married or maybe 99% married because I'm not married to every woman.
The moral standards of that "stonage text" (probably more Bronze age) are the foundation of the laws that you are rightfully so thankful for, in much of the civilized world.
@signmanbob2 You have belief in 'a' god - you 'lack belief in' or are 'atheist' with respect to all the others. Well over 3000 have been documented so 99% is wrong - you're actually way over 99.99% atheist.
Marriage - legal union between a man & woman - very poor analogy - trying to capture 'theism' as only pertaining to Christianity is very conceited.
Like if the husband no longer likes his wife & the father can't prove she was a virgin stone her to death - Ya gotta be grateful for that.
@ginganz13 Anyone having a belief in "a god" cannot be defined as an atheist in any sense of the word. Webster: Atheism=1.a disbelief in the existence of deity 2.the doctrine that there is no deity
Anyone that is married, can no longer be defined as single in any sense of the word.
The analogy is quite accurate.
It doesn't matter how many "gods" are documented. Just believing in any one,or all of the deities disqualifies someone from being classified as an atheist. (oh darn!)
@signmanbob2 - Is it not true that you lack belief in all the other gods except yours? Or are you breaking the first commandment?
The other problem - it is impossible to know all the gods that existed as some records will have been lost - so it would be equally impossible not be atheist about a god that has been lost.
Inuit: - "if I knew nothing of god & sin would I still go to heaven"?
@ginganz13 You're trying to redefine the word atheist or atheism in saying "atheist about a god". Atheism is not the doctrine of disbelief in one god over another, it is complete disbelief in any deity. Belief in one god or another simply ties you with that religion.
From the perspective of a Christian, there is no excuse for not recognizing God's presents in the natural order. Romans 1:20
Anyway, God provided this "Inuit" with a preacher so he would know God and be able to make his decision.
@signmanbob2 - Saying you 'lack belief in' other gods or are 'atheist with respect to' other gods is perfectly correct. It does not change the meaning of the word.
From the point of view of the bible there are many examples of violent/capital punishment for those who recognise/worship/accept other gods.
Eh? the preacher took away choice - you've allready argued christianity is not inclusive. Group delusions require adhereants & omnipotent, omniscent gods always need more money.
@signmanbob2 - more accurately it is the absence of belief in god(s) - When someone says 'god' I have no idea 'what' they are talking about. I understand the concept, mechanisms and maintenance required to persist with the belief but I no longer have the ability to convince myself - this happened not long after I found out about Santa Clause.
@ginganz13 That is merely semantics. It is easier to say "God" than it is to say "Disembodied Eternal Mind Existing Outside the Confines of Space and Time Who Has Created All, Including Space and Time"
That's not too hard to believe in, since you know for a fact that you have a mind and intellect, you have to believe in "mind and intellect".
If you did believed that your existance was the result of a creator, it stand to reason that the creator would have a far greater mind.
@signmanbob2 - Not only are humans easily fooled, some desparately want to be fooled. Simply trying to consider a "Disembodied Eternal Mind Existing Outside the Confines of Space and Time" - that has a deep and personal interest in my sex life is IMPOSSIBLE to believe.
Once 'god(s)' lived in the sky, earth & rocks - to survive it has had to run & hide outside the universe beyond inquiry - beyond concepts that didn't exist when this god was invented.
@ginganz13 Sex life!? The God described in the Bible is not as concerned with ones sex life, as He is concerned with their mind and spirit. If the desires of the flesh influence the mind strongly in a negative way, then that will cause separation from God and that is a concern.
Anything that blocks the relationship of our minds with that of God's is a concern for God. Immoral sexual desires are just one of the things that can inhibit the relationship of our minds with that of God's.
@signmanbob2 - Are you kidding? It advocates killing homosexuals, adulterers, those who frequents sex workers - lies and generalisations about sex workers - Leviticus makes massive errors about who one should and shouldnt marry (know we know about genetics) when and in what circumstances sex is OK - It's obsessed with sex, so are its 'so called' highest representatives here on earth.
Tell me what you know about the mind of this 'god' who hides outside of the universe?
@ginganz13 Once again, you are reading the Bible out of context. The Old Testament focuses on the law and judgement of God, but the New Testament witnesses to the great love and mercy of God. Put it together and you have a God with law and judgement, but with great love and mercy. Read John 8:7 where the law had demanded to stone the woman for adultery, yet God in Jesus said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." The woman was set free.
@signmanbob2 You're cherry picking the stuff you like. These horrific directives are some of the clearest instruction in the bible. Put it together & you have a god with a serious personality disorder.
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God.They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Hosea13:16 - Lovely old joker this god of yours.
@ginganz13 I'm not "cherry picking", I'm telling you an overview. The Old Testament is about strict law and fearce judgement, one side of God. The New Testament is about the love and mercy of God made available to us through Jesus. God created life, for Him to take it away is not immorial. He doesn't want anyone to perish, not the gay, and not the hetrosexual. Jesus has already paid the price and taken all violations upon Himself. There are plenty of gay Christians.
@signmanbob2 Neither gay nor hetrosexual will exist in the spiritual life, since all of that stems from the flesh. Marriage keeps one from sexual sin while in the flesh, but it is not necessary in the spiritual according to Mathew 22:29-30.
There is no difference with gay or straight, no one can stand up to His judgement. We all violate God's law and are candidates for His judgement. God came in the in Jesus and satisfied His own judgment against mankind for those who turn to Him.
@signmanbob2 - You are. You're trying to rationalise behaviour that war criminals have been hung for.
It is imoral by the most elementary moral principle, hypocrisy.
Christ - if you believe it - hardly payed any price, immortal - he was back in 3 days - how does 3 days on a stone slab even begin to cover what has occured since?
Deny all you want but the OT makes it very clear what this god wants for gays, adulterers etc. Actions you can now face criminal charges for suggesting.
@ginganz13 War criminals do not create life for those they take it away from. God gave us life and breath and maintains us. It is not immoral for him to judge life and take it back.
If you or I died for a cause, it is forgotten in time. But this is God that incarnated in the flesh, suffered and died for us, not just physical death, but separation from within Himself (Matthew 27:46). The Son separated from the Father or central mind of God. We cannot appreciate the sacrifice He made.
@signmanbob2 Your assertion about where life comes from is utterly without evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, until such a point the assertion is meaningless.
Seriously - an omiscent omnipotent being capable of creating universes couldn't stand 3 days away at work. It's gibberish.
Dying for my sins? how does that work? Could you hit yourself in the foot with a spade for my mortgage?
@ginganz13 The historical evidence shows that Jesus rose from the dead. The empty tomb, the women who found it, the appearances of Jesus within the same community where he taught by many, the change in the minds of the disciples from cowardly denial to boldly attesting his Resurrection. He was given life once again from God the Father, who is the creator and giver of all life.
No atheist has an explaination for life. They say "Life came from nothing!" Nothing comes from nothing.
@signmanbob2 What an absolute load of rubbish - heresay is not 'evidence'.
The gospels don't even agree on who was there, wether the tomb was open or closed, whether Mary touched or recognised Jesus or even where he appeared to his disciples or how many times. Paul says 500 saw him, Acts 1:15 says no more than 120.
Only the religious are concieted enough to claim to know where life came from - the big joke is their explanation explains precisely nothing.
"Only the religious are concieted enough to claim to know where life came from "
Not really, eh? Come on, let's face the facts here, the religious aren't the only ones dating using methods that apparantly reach to the billions and millions (unobservable).
Life runs on hearsay. Hearsay is like relying on scientists who said we were 90-something% like chimps before human DNA had even been fully sequenced....
Wrong, it just doesn't mention all of them. Infact, if you'd have read further, when Mary went to tell the disciples she said to them "WE don't know where they put him" meaning there was others there but John didn't name them.
Alto of atheists like to make up contradictions where there aren't necasserily any atall.
There are answers to your problems, they aren't so hard to find on the internet.
Who came? JOHN: Mary Magdalene alone. MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome. LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women.
They also don't agree on wether the tomb was open or closed, how many disciples, if Mary recognised Jesus...
Mathew said that tombs broke open and many holy dead wandered the streets. Seems it was quite a banal thing to happen in those days.
Show me where it says "Mary went alone", rather than just that Mary went there.
I wont assume it meant alone when what she said later in the same book and chapter shows that she went with others.
The open tomb problem is again more an assumption than an actual problem. Just because they were discussing who would open the tomb beforehand, and then found it open, doesn't mean they were already there when it opened. Looking up was most likely a reference to it being on higher ground
@TheColaGoodfellow - The point is; science works - its testable and accurate. Religion has no supporting evidence & the testimony is often un-reliable, even self contradictory. There simply is no good reason to believe it.
@signmanbob2 - " If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
@ginganz13 In stopping the stoning of the adulteress, He shows the compassion, love and mercy of God, which supasses even His own law and judgement and is offered to us now through Jesus.
Sexual lust is derived strictly from the flesh. It doesn't have to be homosexualality. It could be a married man just simply wishing he could have sex with his secretary or co-worker. We're all guilty of that, but in accepting Jesus as our savior, we change direction toward the light of Jesus.
@signmanbob2 And the smashing babies head on rocks & eviscerating pregnant women shows he's a sick inconsistent psycho.
Sexual 'lust' is a function of the brain - the science has been done, it's not even disputable - The fact that 'god' has made us this way in full knowledge of the outcome is just another example of what sick fantasy 'god' actually is.
Wow. Nothing drives the proverbial last nail in your own coffin like making a crybaby whiner video about how "it wasn't fair" after losing at anything. Exceptionally bad, you are.
@ginganz13 I didn't address anything about the debate. I'm addressing the fact that coming out and saying "it wasn't fair" is pathetic. Recently another crybaby, before debating Craig, went on BBC radio spouting the same nonsense. The croud is in his favor, there's rules that keep the discussion in his favor, etc. Well that crybaby went on to debate Craig in front of an atheist audience which was moderated by an atheist who had previously debated craig and by popular vote, he lost too. Pathetic.
@ITTutorCanada - ' not fair' is accurate but BC does not say this - he says the format is too rigid and formulaic, it does not allow a broader, more productive inquiry.
Deriding a valid response weakens your argument. Can you respond to THIS video?
"I'm addressing the fact that coming out and saying "it wasn't fair"
But...what if it isn't fair? If you're playing any game and the deck is stacked against you, you have the right to say so.
The point you seem to be so obviously missing is this. Without those rules that Craig has in place he would be destroyed in every single debate. So he MUST stack the deck in his favour.
Craig is a coward when it comes to OPEN debate that much is evident by the very rules he sets.
@tabula123456 You're a moron. Tell that to the many atheists that have MODERATED his debates. Snap out of your delusion seriously it's just plain disgusting.
I see....so Ad-hominem is your style and you call me a moron. I, at least, addressed your comment. The REAL reason you didn't address mine is simply because it's obvious Craig stacks the deck in his favour because he knows what the outcome would be if he didn't.
Why else would anyone stack the deck? I think that people who deny obvious evidence for things is far more moronic don't you? Though if evidence is irrelevant to you then the term 'moron' is way to weak for the likes of you.
@tabula123456 You're right, the deck is stacked. It's a giant global conspiracy and even atheists who chair/moderate his debates are involved. It's a gigantic conspiracy that's so great, there's traitors in your own camp. It's actually the very global conspiracy that JFK spoke of before he was killed. JFK was trying to expose the conspiracy of WLC. You busted the case wide open. Beware, you're probably a marked man!
What the hell kind of answer is that? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment. That's TWICE you have responded without thinking. All I said was that WLC stacks the deck in his favour, Ie, adding all those rules, so the outcome is in his favour. How you got to world domination via conspiracy theories is evidence of an uneducated mind. You simply can't come up with a coherent answer therefore you create these RIDICULOUS answers.
@tabula123456 It is a perfectly suitable answer. You're ranting that WLC's debates are rigged. Many of these debates are moderated and chaired by very outspoken atheists and none of them have come forward and said that the debates are unfair. To the contrary many of them have said they are quite fair and, being that they are the ones overseeing/moderating the debates, I think they are best to judge. In order to maintain your position you need to cling to a delusion, so I gave you one.
@tabula123456 ...and you think calling Dr. Craig a "coward" is not insulting him personally? You attack someone else for what you do yourself. Shame on you.
A debate is a compitition to win the hearts and minds of the listeners. Any compitition, whether it is a card game, football game or a debate, has to have rules and guidlines. Dr. Cooke had every opportunity to present his argument the same as Dr. Craig. He threw away his rebuttal and rolled over, belly-up.
@ITTutorCanada The key word there is "losing"...it's not a contest that ends with a "winner", it's a debate, not North Americans seeing who can eat the most hot dogs in 10 minutes.
William Lane Craig reads the same notes from his first debate in all his debates and still quotes from Anthony Kennys The Five Ways (misquoting him as well).Anthony Kenny is not a physicist or cosmologist wrote a book in 1969 and that is his proof of his kalam theory.WTF
I've just finished listening to the debate, and, thanks to mr. Craig, I had to listen to some of the most perverse speeches I've ever heard. If there is a blind force in the Universe with no moral values, least of all objective, it's him. He'd be glad to personally decimate the humankind just to befriend and please his deity. My respect goes to Bill Cooke for being human and humane! He probably didn't win, but for me Craig has definately lost!
Theists have been getting ass raped in debates for years, just look around. They see craig as a "hero" but he's really just a one-trick pony with good speaking skills. He believes literally in the entire bible, but provides no evidence. I'm not a fan of semantic trickery, which is all he seems to bring. I just like facts and the scientific method. Theists on the internet see how their religious dogma gets laughed at by thinking people and they need someone to do debate for them.
Sounds like the post-debate whining of a loser to me! You cannot change the terms of a debate during the debate Bill. Either do the debate you signed up for or contract yourself to another style of debate completely and if that cannot be done find someone else who will. If you couldn't get what you wanted via email then why not turn it down then? As for "slagging off" when did Craig engage in that Bill? Sounds like a whole bag of sour grapes to me!
I enjoy the sentiment in this video. What's going to win this whole argument, more than the arguments themselves, is showing theists that we aren't the immoral monsters they want to believe we are. Then they will start to realize that belief in god isn't needed in order to be a decent person.
Your insult doesn't really make you look so open minded. So I'll assume it's because you simply don't want to be impressed by or understand his argument, atheism is just one big emotionally based argument to you.
@TheColaGoodfellow Au contraire. It is the theist position that is based on emotional reasoning. I understand the "argument" Craig is making, and I simply dismiss it as worthless and meaningless. Nice try, old boy.
I think this is very intresting, I like Bill Cooke and I'm an evangelical preacher.I like the idea about atheists and christians needing to see we have to live together .
"Changing the terms of the debate so as to Craig can't use the same ole' BS. Well sir, you are a just not playing fair so that the Christian can win, and that is why you must pay 10% of your income to me and send your daughters off to camps where we can sell them to those paying 40% of their income to me"..LOL!
@customerjon Because theists who come to the internet to see their religion get ripped apart feel empowered by WLC and they infect forums all over the place parading him as some great contributor to the intellectual world.
WLC has a sound argument. of course he is going to use it, why wouldn't he?.
If people believe he shouldn't use this argument then the same should apply to atheists and they should completely re-vamp their best arguments, but of course if this happened the argument would be false?
@shizeronmygrill If it were a sound argument it would convince someone at some point. Apologetics are to reaffirm, not convince. It's a sound argument for people who already agree with it. Think what you want of atheists, it's irrelevant. Craig has never convinced anyone with his shtick, not one.
I've seen a few videos involving William Lane Craig and he kinda seems like a Christian debate bully, using the same reductive over simplifying logic that CS Lewis used to try and dogmatically narrow the field of options until only his preferred choice is left in the parameters.
Brilliant how Cooke explains why debating believers is virtually impossible because the definitions change depending on who the believer is and what his specific - man made - believes are.
Why would anyone want to see Craig regurgitate Kalam's Cosmological argument? Because he puts a little well rehearsed twist on it. It's sneaky. Here's what he does.
"Everything that exists has a cause... Something caused the universe to come into BEING. This BEING must be eternal...blah blah blah."
Notice what he does with the two distinct usages of the word BEING.
He does it intentionally, and every time. I've even seen him catch himself mid-sentence correcting his wording.
Bravo - W.L.Craig needs to prove the Christian-Trinity-Yahweh-Jesus deity exists AND that it's the only deity that exists - not whether a generic conceptual "god" possibly exists - the later is the only vague idea he is willing to debate. His debates are worthless and uninteresting because of this.
This guy is so far above WLC in so many respects. Consider just on the philosophical approach of the discussion alone. Compare how Bill's focus rests on finding grounds of communication and taking innovative approaches to old arguments.
Compare this to WLC's constant, inane, vapid attacks on atheists as a whole, and all of the irrelevant potshots taken at Dawkins and others just to get attention.
@Kalevala87 and no atheist has been able to refute his "broken record" arguments? LOL If he uses them over and over again, wouldn't some atheist get a clue??? Whose the idiot here?
@Kalevala87 they have been refuted alright, but not successfully...there's a difference. You can refute the law of gravity, that doesn't mean you will succeed. Any rate, even atheists have said he is a great debater...what's your argument now?
@beto88keys A refutation is successful by definition. Refuting means disproving something. There's no such thing as refuting unsuccessfully. There are atheists who praise his eloquent rhetoric despite the lack of argument and there are atheists who can see through the fluff. If you want to see eloquence listen to Hitchens or Fry. Craig can't hold a candle to either. What is YOUR argument?
@Kalevala87 so I guess you didn't see the Hitchens vs WLC debate huh? That's all I'm gonna say. Hitchens got served...ask any of your serious atheist friends who won that debate, "eloquence" and all.
@Kalevala87 No I haven't seen it, that is why I made reference to it with trembling fear that you would call me on my bluff (sarcasm)...Dude, lady or gentleman, whatever you are: I'm done. I don't have the time to answer to your senseless comments and it's pretty annoying going back to my inbox and deleting them. Have a great day.
@Kalevala87 Simply commending you on your handling that troll. And the "small furry creature" bit is a reference to Hitch-hikers Guide through the Galaxy.
I've never heard this man speak before. He's got it dead on. We need to focus on our similarities and how we can work together and improve understanding and compassion rather than to drive the wedge further.
First they cry "throw them to the lions" and when they get to feel the resistence they say "why cant we just get along" :) Atheists are such modern clowns hiding behind science which can not prove or disprove one way or other if God exist or not, so why not admit, like many of us belivers and non-belivers do : "WE DONT KNOW".
You shouldn't condemn a label on the basis of characteristics that don't actually apply to all of us. I would never say "throw them to the lions" about theists. Nor do I condemn all theists because of a few who have said that atheists are worthless and should die horrible deaths.
"Why not admit...'we don't know'"
Most do. You don't need to know there isn't a god to believe there isn't one. Just as the theist doesn't need to know there is a god to believe there is one.
Bahu bahu, WLC knows how to argue hence the crying of arheists. They never met a beliver who is able to argue and make sence without shouting, bahuuu.
Currently, in all areas of scientific study, and in very academic and intellectual discipline covering every area of human thought and endeavour concerned with the real and material universe, there is no proof that there is any conscious design.
I mean evidence and proof in absolutely any form which is observable and testable at any level within our existing and observable and material universe.
In terms of what we can KNOW, at this time, that is the end of the matter.
Bill Cooke shows himself as a rational and compassionate man in this video. Unfortunately, men like him, whether theistic or atheistic, often ended up on a scaffold or a bonfire. And men like WLC, when they had temporal power sent them there. And there is nothing about any of the abrahamic faiths that has changed which would prevent that happening again if religious institutions once again achieve control of the state.
@myroseaccount why is it that absolutely every single "christian" no matter what background or what type of character is never looked on with legitimacy? i mean, i'm a theist, and even i respect and appreciate dawkins, hitchens, dennet, and harris. i look at all of these men, including craig as completely rational and influential thinkers.
@migol1984 That question contains enough to warrant a conference worth of debate. However, a more important question could be why is it that no man, or woman, can be considered as a legitimate candidate for the US presidency if they are not a christian. Indeed most polls show that an atheist would currently have less legitimacy than a theist who holds any believe in anything supernatural, in other words an Islamic fundamentalist would be almost more preferable than Richard Dawkins!
@myroseaccount i actually agree with you. but let's be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. and this is what most atheist seem to be doing. albeit, i fully understand where you're coming from but my contention is a personal one. i've never had a problem with atheists, but almost everyone seems to have a problem with me when they find that i believe in a man who rose from the dead. why? sure you can poke fun of me, but why be my enemy? most theists face the same thing despite who they are
@myroseaccount but i will say, i doubt an islamic fundamentalist would be more popular. it be interesting to see both dawkins and a muslim fundy running for president. i'd personally vote for dawkins, but then again it depends entirely on their policy because "religious" backgrounds or lack thereof should not be the determining factor of who is better at anything, and much less a rational and good human being.
@myroseaccount I think that tendency comes from McCarthyism and the cold war. Communists were always demonized as 'Evil Atheists' and the prejudice stuck.
"I know not what you mean by God" is sometimes called igtheism, and someone espousing that belief really has no place at a formal debate about God's existence. Sounds like they never should have gone up against each other. Also, this gentleman sounds like a thorough-going relativist, debates with such thinkers are bound to be depressingly inconclusive and useless.
@JWHurwitz In every case I've witnessed, people asserting a god know not what they themselves mean... including the big name apologists like Craig. Existence of a being that supposedly transcends what we can observe is not a debateable topic in the first place, as support for an affirmative position is bound to be an argument from ignorance, and support for opposition is impossible less refutation of the arguments from ignorance.
I'm sorry, he's saying he was put in a 'moot' straightjacket, but surely he could have raised these issues during the course of the debate, he had all that time to speak, and in that time he is free to say anything he wants and Craig normally does, to be fair, respond to points raised by the other mooter.
There's only one God, one divine consciousness, one conscious energy that created the universe with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
A William Lane Craig debate is the last place you'll find talk of common ground or moving forward. Craig is all about winning debates. He wants to go for the highest profile targets available (if he thinks he can beat them) and display their scalps on his belt. Never mind silly things like "reaching an understanding" or "convincing people". I think it is fair to say that he wins the vast majority of his debates, but his arguments are not convincing in the least. And I doubt that bothers him.
Trying to be as impartial as I can, it just seems like Craig prefers formal debate and Cooke prefers a more informal, conversation-style debate. I'm assuming that Cooke was the challenger in this case (he speaks of talking with Craig's handlers, so to speak), and so Craig gets to pick the terms of the debate. And he naturally chose the format he personally prefers.
I'm not sure why someone of Dr. Cooke's stature would give credibility to Craig by bothering with him. The only things Craig were a pulpit and a respected member of the intellegensia standing with him on stage to make it look like he's taken seriously by them.
@USERNAMEfieldempty LOL!!! a pseudo-intellectual? The man is one of the most respected philosophers in the western hemisphere. There is a reason why Denette, hitchens and harris call him brilliant.
@AegeanKing ''[Craig is] one of the most respected philosophers in the western hemisphere.''
That is called an argument from ignorance. He's a one-trick pony with his tedious 'Cosmological Argument'. Which is merely a word-play trick regarding the nature of the pre-universe. He's a fraud.
@USERNAMEfieldempty It wasn't an argument. It was an opinion. Secondly, saying he is a one trick pony just shows how completely ignorant you are of his work. His specialty is not even the cosmological argument but the the theory of how God relates to time. That has been his major focus throughout his career. Not to mention all of the other arguments he uses. Way to not know a damn thing about him...
@AegeanKing all that crap about either/or word-twisting. And 'moral doodies'. He's a charmless closed book with absolutely no sense of humour. And he is unreachable in a debate. He ignores every single thing offered to him. Hitchens et al repeatedly battered him and he just walks away looking smug. He's a pseudo-intellectual wanker.
@USERNAMEfieldempty Is that a joke? Not only did Hitchens admit defeat, but the audience voted Craig the winner of the debate. The admin of the atheist site commonsenseatheism said that "Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child".
@AegeanKing Couldn't give a toss, mate. Anyone who has spent 20 years claiming he can prove God using word-play with reference to the 'time' before the big-bang is a joke. proper clever people wouldn't dream of spouting such over-ambitious claims. He is an intellectual pygmy. If you think he isn't... well, you know.
@USERNAMEfieldempty Craig has never said that he can prove the existence of God. Again, you are showing how ignorant you are of who he is and what he does. As for his work, thats what philosophers do, they pick a topic and write on it. You can call him any name you want but all of his opponents have a great respect for him, his work and his intellectual capability. If you dont think he's brilliant....well, you know.
@AegeanKing Professional philosophers do not "pick a topic and write about it". That's called a book report. Also, professionals specializing in the same field refer to each other as colleagues, not "opponents". I'd be much more impressed with Craig if he published his hypothetical ideas in a secular journal affiliated w/an accredited university. His theories could then be scrutinized by a committee of his peers and Craig could respond accordingly. This is how normal people operate.
@AegeanKing And Craig was quite clearly spanked by Shelly Kagan in their debate set in a more discussion style format. No wonder he refused Cooke's offer on changing the format.
@AegeanKing If you think that facts and truths about the universe and human life are revealed during these unintentionally humorous 'debates', perhaps you should spend some time reading through published journals or eavesdropping on discussions between committee members of a peer review board. This boxing match nonsense seems to be a big hit with the hopelessly naive . Hitchens is a journalist who writes for Vanity Fair. The fact that Craig considers him an "opponent" is rather pathetic
Remember, Craig is the one saying, and I quote (from Reasonable Faith):
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter."
In other words: Craig admits he's an intellectual dud.
i ALWAYS hated that debating format, WLC is so fond of.
First of all he's debating skills are appalling, because for one who isn't an intellectual, you can't follow him, because half the time he uses constant streams of sophisticated terms for basic words(i believe to confuse). He's the exact opposite of Dan Dannett when it comes to expressing. And second, he's style of debating is purely, not boring, eye-stabbing-ly boring,unlike Hitchens,Harris,D&D who constantly try to explain themselves.
It all fails without empirical proof. And LOTS of people have seen the flawed foundations in WLC's arguments, ergo nothing I say is empty rhetoric. You still haven't checked out those who have debunked him, have you? That much is obvious, so you're only deluding yourself by seeing only the side you want to see. Life's rosy when wearing pink glasses.
Cooke's discussion isn't about WLC's premises. You're headed down a straw man path with that one. Watch the video again to stay on track.
Emotional testimonies have nothing to do with the TRUTH of the worldview in question. Cooke is ignorant on this. Christians don't share completely different understandings of the Christian God. He's referring to denominations which are only different in regards to particular missions, geographical regions, and which teachings of Jesus is being ignored in other churches. They differ on the general view of God at all. Sorry, but Cooke needs to read up on church history more.
Craig wouldn't be nearly as effective if he didn't exercise complete control over his circus. It's very much like faith healers using radio transmitters to pick their marks out of the audience. This revelation doesn't surprise me one bit. It's yet another example of the types of dishonesty that Christian apologists use when presenting and defending their cases.
@ChipArgyle Is that a joke? Don't be a hater. Christopher Hitchens himself said he respected Craig as a scholar and philosopher. Craig is effective because his arguments are effective. Don't try and degrade him cuz you dont like his message. Learn to respect people.
@AegeanKing Craig's arguments always begin with weak, inaccurate, or, to be respectful as you wish, somewhat deceptive foundations. His only strength is his command of language which he uses to his advantage to obfuscate and run his discussions in circles. In all his arguing, he still hasn't proven anything, but I'm sure he makes a great living off of it.
@ChipArgyle Really? I guess thats why he is one of the most repsected philosophers in the western hemisphere. There is nothing in Craigs arguments that are weak or innacurate. Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have all said that Craig is an amazing philosopher. Christopher Hitchens also said that Craig was a first class scholar. I think you're a bit sore cuz his arguments are a bit above your comprehension level so you accuse him of arguing in circles. Another bitter atheist...
@AegeanKing Assumptions will get you nowhere. And you're absolutely incorrect about his weaknesses and errors too. Perhaps it's time for you to stop being so one-sided in your support of him. Do a little research and have your eyes opened.
Like the rest of them, I'll believe Craig when I see some actual proof of which he spews. It matters not whether people think he's capable as a philosopher. I'm sure he'd be entertaining at arguing for the existence of pink unicorns too.
@ChipArgyle LOL you need proof of logically sound arguments? Also, please be original. The pink unicorn thing is old and played out. The reason that Craig is so formidable and according to Sam Harris "puts the fear of God in many atheists", is because his arguments are good and logically sound. His arguments are good and convincing which is why Dan Dennett calls him "Brilliant". People deduce what is true or not by logical argumentation. He's a master logician with logical arguments.
@AegeanKing As I already mentioned and you've so quickly forgotten, most of his arguments start with flawed foundations, therefore they aren't logically sound. Yes, everyone needs proof of a concept in order for it to be determined reality; mere argument proves NOTHING. That's called rational thinking. In all his prattle, WLC has yet to prove there is a God. All he's proven is that he can dance around a topic.
Note that despite his polite niceties, Sam Harris remains an atheist.
I haven't quickly forgotten anything. You have only launched ad hominem attacks on Craig without showing a single example of how the premises of his arguments are based on "flawed foundations". Give an example of a flawed premise of any of his argument. Funny how none of his opponents attack his arguments as having flawed premises but you do.
@ChipArgyle Lastly, Craig is not trying to prove the existence of God empirically. He is trying to give good logical grounds and evidence that belief in God is rational and that his existence is probable. That is the entire purpose of his argument. Does Dr. Cooke even once attack his premises as flawed? No, he doesnt. Your accusations are empty rhetoric.
@MomoTheBellyDancer he fails? You have no idea how many people WLC has saved from the delusions of atheism. Not to mention that all of his opponents, including hitchens and harris, consider him to be a brilliant scholar. What a ridiculous statement you just made about not convincing anybody. How could you possibly know such a thing sitting in your mothers basement?
@MomoTheBellyDancer Go to his forum on his website and read the discusisons and you will see how many people he has convinced. I know of nobody PERSONALLY because everybody I know has a faith of some sort already. As for hitchens and harris, Hitchens ADMITTED defeat and the crowd voted Craig the winner of their debate. Hitchens was not being polite, he was being honest. Craig is a first rate scholar. Even the admin for the atheist site commonsenseatheism said Craig whipped hitchens like a child.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ur just another hater and militant atheist who is so obsessed with his own unbelief that he actually takes time to watch videos about a subject that he doesnt even believe in. Its actually pretty sad...
@AegeanKing There's no such thing as "delusions of atheism" as it's only a lack of belief in a god. WLC is an incredibly smart scholar and a great speaker. That doesn't prove god exists or what WLC says is true (plenty of other xtians disagree with WLC - who's right?). The only people he convinces are the ones that are already blindly following.
@Drgamedood He was not joking. He was making a point. Harris was trying to say that Craig is a formidable opponent and his arguments should not be taken lightly. Hitchens himself said that Craig was a first rate scholar.
The problem is about debating about debate: most christians and other religious actually have no experience of 'God', have a vague idea of God. I wonder whether the word has any meaning at all. Sartre and Foucalt were good at showing how words can give us the illusion of being, when infact we argue about ideas with no actuality. This is absurd.
Lane craig is a fraud, simple!
jjoneil73 2 weeks ago 6
With these public debates, you have to have a standard and well established neutral format, as Dr. Craig insisted on, or the debaters will just run over each other and get side-lined off of the debate topic.
The topic of this debate was "Is God a Delusion?", not "Is the God of Christianity (or Dr. Craig's God) a Delusion?".
Dr. Cooke wants to debate without rules or format like a lunch room argument.
Very little can be gained from that kind of a "lack of format" in a public venue like this.
signmanbob2 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from NZARH
@signmanbob2 - If you'd listened at all thats exactly what Dr Cooke did not want.
ginganz13 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
signmanbob2 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ginganz13 @ginganz13 I did listen, and I stand by my statement. Dr. Cooke wanted to deviate from the standard debate format so that he could try to dilute the core subject of argument.
He even wanted to dismiss his rebuttal and start taking questions early on.
He says that he doesn't want to get into a "He said, she said" argument, referring to Dr. Craig's use of quotes from other scholars to support his arguments, but the fact is that this is just good debating.
signmanbob2 3 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 No he very specifically wanted a dsicussion about "common ground" so they weren't "talking past each other" something that encompasses how both sides could recognise how they can live "good productive lives". He neither said nor inferred that he wanted a structure-less "lunch room argument" or to "dilute the core subject of the argument".
Craigs intellect & technique are 'interesting' but the substance has been comprehensively debunked. Would be nice to see it used in other ways.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 "Living Good Productive Lives" is not the subject of the debate. A debate on living "good productive lives" needs to be addressed between two atheists or two Christians within their own paradigm of thought and understanding. Since living a good productive life for the atheist is preparation for extinction and non-existence (he wants to be remembered as good), and for the christian, it is preparation for eternity (he wants to be approved by God).
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 -Jesus taught understanding & inclusiveness - the polar opposite of your assertion. The assertion about purpose is ridiculous, it assumes narcism & nihilism. Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) - that is all.
The idea that preparing for a so far un-proven 'after-life' is 'productive' is false, especially as they don't really believe it - watch them wail & cry when one of them dies - if they thought it was the gateway to eternal bliss why do they wear seat-belts?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 Sir you have not witnessed a true Christian exit this life. I was friends with a young lady who was dying of cancer and had a daughter who was still a tottler.
In her Christian faith, she prepared her young family. Even leaving her husband a "to-do" list for her young daughter. She made videos of herself for her young daughter to watch later in her life, that would assure her that her mommy is well and with Jesus.
Read John 14:6 and still tell me that is inclusive.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 You haven't replied yet without making a false assertion. I've seen both - Despite the promises made to the religious, the people at both services seemed to have exactly the same attitude to avoiding finding out for sure about the after-life for as long as possible.
Gal 3:28 - we're all Jesus - sounds pretty inclusive to me. John 14:6 - we get to the big man through him.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 Please don't quote the Bible out of context. Read Gal 3:26, 27 and 29. Paul is only talking to believers in Jesus "For as many of you as were baptized into Christ". That's not inclusive of all. Only those baptized with the Holy Spirit through Jesus.
If you are drowning and someone throws a life preserver and you choose not to take it, being rescued will be non-inclusive. It won't include you. It will only include those who choose to take the life preserver that is offered.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 If you're going to get pedantic about the bible, shouldn't your 'true christians' follow it to the letter - like the instructions in Leviticus, kings, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Judges ect about rape, infanticide, sex slavery, genocide, incest? Judgement of character is usually made on the worst moral act, especially in law for very good reasons. Contradictions asside the bible fails miserably in this respect.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 I'm not going to argue the Bible with an atheist, since it is a book written to believers or those searching. A hard-core non-believer naturally would not understand it. I'm just asking that if you are going to use it for quotations, you quote it in context.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 Another false assertion - whats not to understand about a stoneage text, that it has horrific moral standards that are now (thankfully) ilegal due to progress. Isn't claiming to be a 'true christian' among the thousands of denominations a bit conceited? How do you know you are right?
The fact is you too are an atheist - about the 99% of other gods that have existed.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 You contradict yourself by saying that I am 99% atheist. If "atheism is the lack of belief in god(s)" as you say it is, and I have abundant belief in God, then I can't be any percentage, an atheist. It's like saying I'm almost married or maybe 99% married because I'm not married to every woman.
The moral standards of that "stonage text" (probably more Bronze age) are the foundation of the laws that you are rightfully so thankful for, in much of the civilized world.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 You have belief in 'a' god - you 'lack belief in' or are 'atheist' with respect to all the others. Well over 3000 have been documented so 99% is wrong - you're actually way over 99.99% atheist.
Marriage - legal union between a man & woman - very poor analogy - trying to capture 'theism' as only pertaining to Christianity is very conceited.
Like if the husband no longer likes his wife & the father can't prove she was a virgin stone her to death - Ya gotta be grateful for that.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 Anyone having a belief in "a god" cannot be defined as an atheist in any sense of the word. Webster: Atheism=1.a disbelief in the existence of deity 2.the doctrine that there is no deity
Anyone that is married, can no longer be defined as single in any sense of the word.
The analogy is quite accurate.
It doesn't matter how many "gods" are documented. Just believing in any one,or all of the deities disqualifies someone from being classified as an atheist. (oh darn!)
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - Is it not true that you lack belief in all the other gods except yours? Or are you breaking the first commandment?
The other problem - it is impossible to know all the gods that existed as some records will have been lost - so it would be equally impossible not be atheist about a god that has been lost.
Inuit: - "if I knew nothing of god & sin would I still go to heaven"?
Preacher : "Yes"
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13
Inuit: - "if I knew nothing of god & sin would I still go to heaven"?
Preacher : "Yes"
Inuit: "then why did you tell me"?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 You're trying to redefine the word atheist or atheism in saying "atheist about a god". Atheism is not the doctrine of disbelief in one god over another, it is complete disbelief in any deity. Belief in one god or another simply ties you with that religion.
From the perspective of a Christian, there is no excuse for not recognizing God's presents in the natural order. Romans 1:20
Anyway, God provided this "Inuit" with a preacher so he would know God and be able to make his decision.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - Saying you 'lack belief in' other gods or are 'atheist with respect to' other gods is perfectly correct. It does not change the meaning of the word.
From the point of view of the bible there are many examples of violent/capital punishment for those who recognise/worship/accept other gods.
Eh? the preacher took away choice - you've allready argued christianity is not inclusive. Group delusions require adhereants & omnipotent, omniscent gods always need more money.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 "Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s) - that is all."
Is atheism the lack of belief in a god or is it the belief in the lack of a god?
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - more accurately it is the absence of belief in god(s) - When someone says 'god' I have no idea 'what' they are talking about. I understand the concept, mechanisms and maintenance required to persist with the belief but I no longer have the ability to convince myself - this happened not long after I found out about Santa Clause.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 That is merely semantics. It is easier to say "God" than it is to say "Disembodied Eternal Mind Existing Outside the Confines of Space and Time Who Has Created All, Including Space and Time"
That's not too hard to believe in, since you know for a fact that you have a mind and intellect, you have to believe in "mind and intellect".
If you did believed that your existance was the result of a creator, it stand to reason that the creator would have a far greater mind.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - Not only are humans easily fooled, some desparately want to be fooled. Simply trying to consider a "Disembodied Eternal Mind Existing Outside the Confines of Space and Time" - that has a deep and personal interest in my sex life is IMPOSSIBLE to believe.
Once 'god(s)' lived in the sky, earth & rocks - to survive it has had to run & hide outside the universe beyond inquiry - beyond concepts that didn't exist when this god was invented.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 Sex life!? The God described in the Bible is not as concerned with ones sex life, as He is concerned with their mind and spirit. If the desires of the flesh influence the mind strongly in a negative way, then that will cause separation from God and that is a concern.
Anything that blocks the relationship of our minds with that of God's is a concern for God. Immoral sexual desires are just one of the things that can inhibit the relationship of our minds with that of God's.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - Are you kidding? It advocates killing homosexuals, adulterers, those who frequents sex workers - lies and generalisations about sex workers - Leviticus makes massive errors about who one should and shouldnt marry (know we know about genetics) when and in what circumstances sex is OK - It's obsessed with sex, so are its 'so called' highest representatives here on earth.
Tell me what you know about the mind of this 'god' who hides outside of the universe?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 Once again, you are reading the Bible out of context. The Old Testament focuses on the law and judgement of God, but the New Testament witnesses to the great love and mercy of God. Put it together and you have a God with law and judgement, but with great love and mercy. Read John 8:7 where the law had demanded to stone the woman for adultery, yet God in Jesus said "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." The woman was set free.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 You're cherry picking the stuff you like. These horrific directives are some of the clearest instruction in the bible. Put it together & you have a god with a serious personality disorder.
"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God.They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." Hosea13:16 - Lovely old joker this god of yours.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 I'm not "cherry picking", I'm telling you an overview. The Old Testament is about strict law and fearce judgement, one side of God. The New Testament is about the love and mercy of God made available to us through Jesus. God created life, for Him to take it away is not immorial. He doesn't want anyone to perish, not the gay, and not the hetrosexual. Jesus has already paid the price and taken all violations upon Himself. There are plenty of gay Christians.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 Neither gay nor hetrosexual will exist in the spiritual life, since all of that stems from the flesh. Marriage keeps one from sexual sin while in the flesh, but it is not necessary in the spiritual according to Mathew 22:29-30.
There is no difference with gay or straight, no one can stand up to His judgement. We all violate God's law and are candidates for His judgement. God came in the in Jesus and satisfied His own judgment against mankind for those who turn to Him.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - You are. You're trying to rationalise behaviour that war criminals have been hung for.
It is imoral by the most elementary moral principle, hypocrisy.
Christ - if you believe it - hardly payed any price, immortal - he was back in 3 days - how does 3 days on a stone slab even begin to cover what has occured since?
Deny all you want but the OT makes it very clear what this god wants for gays, adulterers etc. Actions you can now face criminal charges for suggesting.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 War criminals do not create life for those they take it away from. God gave us life and breath and maintains us. It is not immoral for him to judge life and take it back.
If you or I died for a cause, it is forgotten in time. But this is God that incarnated in the flesh, suffered and died for us, not just physical death, but separation from within Himself (Matthew 27:46). The Son separated from the Father or central mind of God. We cannot appreciate the sacrifice He made.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 Your assertion about where life comes from is utterly without evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, until such a point the assertion is meaningless.
Seriously - an omiscent omnipotent being capable of creating universes couldn't stand 3 days away at work. It's gibberish.
Dying for my sins? how does that work? Could you hit yourself in the foot with a spade for my mortgage?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 The historical evidence shows that Jesus rose from the dead. The empty tomb, the women who found it, the appearances of Jesus within the same community where he taught by many, the change in the minds of the disciples from cowardly denial to boldly attesting his Resurrection. He was given life once again from God the Father, who is the creator and giver of all life.
No atheist has an explaination for life. They say "Life came from nothing!" Nothing comes from nothing.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 What an absolute load of rubbish - heresay is not 'evidence'.
The gospels don't even agree on who was there, wether the tomb was open or closed, whether Mary touched or recognised Jesus or even where he appeared to his disciples or how many times. Paul says 500 saw him, Acts 1:15 says no more than 120.
Only the religious are concieted enough to claim to know where life came from - the big joke is their explanation explains precisely nothing.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago 2
@ginganz13
"Only the religious are concieted enough to claim to know where life came from "
Not really, eh? Come on, let's face the facts here, the religious aren't the only ones dating using methods that apparantly reach to the billions and millions (unobservable).
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Don't know what you're on about - reach the billions what?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13
Billions of years.
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13
Nothing doesn't exist.
Life runs on hearsay. Hearsay is like relying on scientists who said we were 90-something% like chimps before human DNA had even been fully sequenced....
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13
"The gospels don't even agree on who was there"
Wrong, it just doesn't mention all of them. Infact, if you'd have read further, when Mary went to tell the disciples she said to them "WE don't know where they put him" meaning there was others there but John didn't name them.
Alto of atheists like to make up contradictions where there aren't necasserily any atall.
There are answers to your problems, they aren't so hard to find on the internet.
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow What the Gospels say;
Who came? JOHN: Mary Magdalene alone. MATTHEW: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary. MARK: Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Salome. LUKE: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James and other women.
They also don't agree on wether the tomb was open or closed, how many disciples, if Mary recognised Jesus...
Mathew said that tombs broke open and many holy dead wandered the streets. Seems it was quite a banal thing to happen in those days.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13
Show me where it says "Mary went alone", rather than just that Mary went there.
I wont assume it meant alone when what she said later in the same book and chapter shows that she went with others.
The open tomb problem is again more an assumption than an actual problem. Just because they were discussing who would open the tomb beforehand, and then found it open, doesn't mean they were already there when it opened. Looking up was most likely a reference to it being on higher ground
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow - The point is; science works - its testable and accurate. Religion has no supporting evidence & the testimony is often un-reliable, even self contradictory. There simply is no good reason to believe it.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 - " If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
Leviticus 20:13
Why is this out of context and how does stopping someone from stoning an adulteress make it right?
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
@ginganz13 In stopping the stoning of the adulteress, He shows the compassion, love and mercy of God, which supasses even His own law and judgement and is offered to us now through Jesus.
Sexual lust is derived strictly from the flesh. It doesn't have to be homosexualality. It could be a married man just simply wishing he could have sex with his secretary or co-worker. We're all guilty of that, but in accepting Jesus as our savior, we change direction toward the light of Jesus.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@signmanbob2 And the smashing babies head on rocks & eviscerating pregnant women shows he's a sick inconsistent psycho.
Sexual 'lust' is a function of the brain - the science has been done, it's not even disputable - The fact that 'god' has made us this way in full knowledge of the outcome is just another example of what sick fantasy 'god' actually is.
Made sick and told to be well - what nonsense.
ginganz13 2 weeks ago
Wow. Nothing drives the proverbial last nail in your own coffin like making a crybaby whiner video about how "it wasn't fair" after losing at anything. Exceptionally bad, you are.
ITTutorCanada 4 weeks ago
@ITTutorCanada Can you address the points he makes or is exposing your bias through derision the only tool at your disposal?
ginganz13 4 weeks ago
@ginganz13 I didn't address anything about the debate. I'm addressing the fact that coming out and saying "it wasn't fair" is pathetic. Recently another crybaby, before debating Craig, went on BBC radio spouting the same nonsense. The croud is in his favor, there's rules that keep the discussion in his favor, etc. Well that crybaby went on to debate Craig in front of an atheist audience which was moderated by an atheist who had previously debated craig and by popular vote, he lost too. Pathetic.
ITTutorCanada 4 weeks ago
@ITTutorCanada - ' not fair' is accurate but BC does not say this - he says the format is too rigid and formulaic, it does not allow a broader, more productive inquiry.
Deriding a valid response weakens your argument. Can you respond to THIS video?
ginganz13 4 weeks ago
@ITTutorCanada
"I'm addressing the fact that coming out and saying "it wasn't fair"
But...what if it isn't fair? If you're playing any game and the deck is stacked against you, you have the right to say so.
The point you seem to be so obviously missing is this. Without those rules that Craig has in place he would be destroyed in every single debate. So he MUST stack the deck in his favour.
Craig is a coward when it comes to OPEN debate that much is evident by the very rules he sets.
tabula123456 3 weeks ago
@tabula123456 You're a moron. Tell that to the many atheists that have MODERATED his debates. Snap out of your delusion seriously it's just plain disgusting.
ITTutorCanada 3 weeks ago
@ITTutorC
I see....so Ad-hominem is your style and you call me a moron. I, at least, addressed your comment. The REAL reason you didn't address mine is simply because it's obvious Craig stacks the deck in his favour because he knows what the outcome would be if he didn't.
Why else would anyone stack the deck? I think that people who deny obvious evidence for things is far more moronic don't you? Though if evidence is irrelevant to you then the term 'moron' is way to weak for the likes of you.
tabula123456 3 weeks ago
@tabula123456 You're right, the deck is stacked. It's a giant global conspiracy and even atheists who chair/moderate his debates are involved. It's a gigantic conspiracy that's so great, there's traitors in your own camp. It's actually the very global conspiracy that JFK spoke of before he was killed. JFK was trying to expose the conspiracy of WLC. You busted the case wide open. Beware, you're probably a marked man!
ITTutorCanada 3 weeks ago
@ITTutorCanada
What the hell kind of answer is that? That has nothing whatsoever to do with the comment. That's TWICE you have responded without thinking. All I said was that WLC stacks the deck in his favour, Ie, adding all those rules, so the outcome is in his favour. How you got to world domination via conspiracy theories is evidence of an uneducated mind. You simply can't come up with a coherent answer therefore you create these RIDICULOUS answers.
Closed minded sycophant comes to mind.
tabula123456 3 weeks ago
@tabula123456 It is a perfectly suitable answer. You're ranting that WLC's debates are rigged. Many of these debates are moderated and chaired by very outspoken atheists and none of them have come forward and said that the debates are unfair. To the contrary many of them have said they are quite fair and, being that they are the ones overseeing/moderating the debates, I think they are best to judge. In order to maintain your position you need to cling to a delusion, so I gave you one.
ITTutorCanada 3 weeks ago
@tabula123456 ...and you think calling Dr. Craig a "coward" is not insulting him personally? You attack someone else for what you do yourself. Shame on you.
A debate is a compitition to win the hearts and minds of the listeners. Any compitition, whether it is a card game, football game or a debate, has to have rules and guidlines. Dr. Cooke had every opportunity to present his argument the same as Dr. Craig. He threw away his rebuttal and rolled over, belly-up.
signmanbob2 2 weeks ago
@ITTutorCanada The key word there is "losing"...it's not a contest that ends with a "winner", it's a debate, not North Americans seeing who can eat the most hot dogs in 10 minutes.
satanidomini 3 weeks ago
William Lane Craig reads the same notes from his first debate in all his debates and still quotes from Anthony Kennys The Five Ways (misquoting him as well).Anthony Kenny is not a physicist or cosmologist wrote a book in 1969 and that is his proof of his kalam theory.WTF
ahhninjadragon 1 month ago
I've just finished listening to the debate, and, thanks to mr. Craig, I had to listen to some of the most perverse speeches I've ever heard. If there is a blind force in the Universe with no moral values, least of all objective, it's him. He'd be glad to personally decimate the humankind just to befriend and please his deity. My respect goes to Bill Cooke for being human and humane! He probably didn't win, but for me Craig has definately lost!
akela6567 1 month ago
Theists have been getting ass raped in debates for years, just look around. They see craig as a "hero" but he's really just a one-trick pony with good speaking skills. He believes literally in the entire bible, but provides no evidence. I'm not a fan of semantic trickery, which is all he seems to bring. I just like facts and the scientific method. Theists on the internet see how their religious dogma gets laughed at by thinking people and they need someone to do debate for them.
FellOnSoundGarden 1 month ago
Sounds like the post-debate whining of a loser to me! You cannot change the terms of a debate during the debate Bill. Either do the debate you signed up for or contract yourself to another style of debate completely and if that cannot be done find someone else who will. If you couldn't get what you wanted via email then why not turn it down then? As for "slagging off" when did Craig engage in that Bill? Sounds like a whole bag of sour grapes to me!
TheCartesianTheist 1 month ago
I enjoy the sentiment in this video. What's going to win this whole argument, more than the arguments themselves, is showing theists that we aren't the immoral monsters they want to believe we are. Then they will start to realize that belief in god isn't needed in order to be a decent person.
Staunts 1 month ago
William Lane Craig is such a deluded retard. Intelligent people are not impressed with the Kalamitous Cosmological Non-Argument.
TheAikenHead 1 month ago 8
@TheAikenHead
Your insult doesn't really make you look so open minded. So I'll assume it's because you simply don't want to be impressed by or understand his argument, atheism is just one big emotionally based argument to you.
TheColaGoodfellow 2 weeks ago
@TheColaGoodfellow Au contraire. It is the theist position that is based on emotional reasoning. I understand the "argument" Craig is making, and I simply dismiss it as worthless and meaningless. Nice try, old boy.
TheAikenHead 2 weeks ago
I think this is very intresting, I like Bill Cooke and I'm an evangelical preacher.I like the idea about atheists and christians needing to see we have to live together .
Zwemer100 1 month ago
"Changing the terms of the debate so as to Craig can't use the same ole' BS. Well sir, you are a just not playing fair so that the Christian can win, and that is why you must pay 10% of your income to me and send your daughters off to camps where we can sell them to those paying 40% of their income to me"..LOL!
MrHarvardGuy 1 month ago
Why do people even give Craig the time of day?
customerjon 1 month ago 2
@customerjon Because theists who come to the internet to see their religion get ripped apart feel empowered by WLC and they infect forums all over the place parading him as some great contributor to the intellectual world.
SDub817 1 month ago
WLC has a sound argument. of course he is going to use it, why wouldn't he?.
If people believe he shouldn't use this argument then the same should apply to atheists and they should completely re-vamp their best arguments, but of course if this happened the argument would be false?
shizeronmygrill 1 month ago
@shizeronmygrill If it were a sound argument it would convince someone at some point. Apologetics are to reaffirm, not convince. It's a sound argument for people who already agree with it. Think what you want of atheists, it's irrelevant. Craig has never convinced anyone with his shtick, not one.
no2religions 1 month ago
Bill Cooke is absolutely correct.
AceofDlamonds 1 month ago 7
That was just a rambling whinge.
northern1639 1 month ago
I've seen a few videos involving William Lane Craig and he kinda seems like a Christian debate bully, using the same reductive over simplifying logic that CS Lewis used to try and dogmatically narrow the field of options until only his preferred choice is left in the parameters.
PaladinHero 1 month ago
Brilliant how Cooke explains why debating believers is virtually impossible because the definitions change depending on who the believer is and what his specific - man made - believes are.
windmill10 1 month ago
@windmill10 It's even worse: The definitions change according to the facts you confront them with. There is no arguing with wishful thinking.
TomFynn 1 month ago
Why would anyone want to see Craig regurgitate Kalam's Cosmological argument? Because he puts a little well rehearsed twist on it. It's sneaky. Here's what he does.
"Everything that exists has a cause... Something caused the universe to come into BEING. This BEING must be eternal...blah blah blah."
Notice what he does with the two distinct usages of the word BEING.
He does it intentionally, and every time. I've even seen him catch himself mid-sentence correcting his wording.
Dishonest.
HellRehab 2 months ago
Bravo - W.L.Craig needs to prove the Christian-Trinity-Yahweh-Jesus deity exists AND that it's the only deity that exists - not whether a generic conceptual "god" possibly exists - the later is the only vague idea he is willing to debate. His debates are worthless and uninteresting because of this.
cupwithhandles 2 months ago
This guy is so far above WLC in so many respects. Consider just on the philosophical approach of the discussion alone. Compare how Bill's focus rests on finding grounds of communication and taking innovative approaches to old arguments.
Compare this to WLC's constant, inane, vapid attacks on atheists as a whole, and all of the irrelevant potshots taken at Dawkins and others just to get attention.
Mathenaut 2 months ago 2
Who would dislike this?? What a beautiful and eminently reasonable position.
attitudinous 2 months ago
So an atheist is a good debater = he knows his stuff...
A Christian is a good debater = he is all fluff...
Good job atheists, you've outdone your stupidity.
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys Except WLC is not a good debater. He's a broken record, nothing more.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 and no atheist has been able to refute his "broken record" arguments? LOL If he uses them over and over again, wouldn't some atheist get a clue??? Whose the idiot here?
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys You're mistaken. His arguments have actually been refuted over and over, yet he keeps using them. Hence his being a broken record.
Kalevala87 2 months ago 2
@Kalevala87 they have been refuted alright, but not successfully...there's a difference. You can refute the law of gravity, that doesn't mean you will succeed. Any rate, even atheists have said he is a great debater...what's your argument now?
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys A refutation is successful by definition. Refuting means disproving something. There's no such thing as refuting unsuccessfully. There are atheists who praise his eloquent rhetoric despite the lack of argument and there are atheists who can see through the fluff. If you want to see eloquence listen to Hitchens or Fry. Craig can't hold a candle to either. What is YOUR argument?
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 so I guess you didn't see the Hitchens vs WLC debate huh? That's all I'm gonna say. Hitchens got served...ask any of your serious atheist friends who won that debate, "eloquence" and all.
beto88keys 2 months ago
@beto88keys Oh, I've seen it. The question is, have you?
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 No I haven't seen it, that is why I made reference to it with trembling fear that you would call me on my bluff (sarcasm)...Dude, lady or gentleman, whatever you are: I'm done. I don't have the time to answer to your senseless comments and it's pretty annoying going back to my inbox and deleting them. Have a great day.
beto88keys 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Another troll bites the dust. Well done Sir/Madam/small furry creature from Alpha Centauri!
TomFynn 2 months ago
@TomFynn What are you on about, kind sir from Mu Cephei?
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Simply commending you on your handling that troll. And the "small furry creature" bit is a reference to Hitch-hikers Guide through the Galaxy.
TomFynn 2 months ago
@TomFynn I should definitely get around to reading that book at some point.
Kalevala87 2 months ago
@Kalevala87 Highly recommended. As an alternative there is an old BBC series on it. Bit trashy, but captures the spirit of the book perfectly.
TomFynn 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beto88keys " So an atheist is a good debater = he knows his stuff...
A Christian is a good debater = he is all fluff... "
- Nope... a successful argument is a successful argument... full stop.
And WLC doesn't have any.
All this video points out is how inflexible Craig is when it comes to his standard debates.
Oddly enough, when he is put in a more discussion type presentation he doesn't do well.
Roper122 2 months ago
I've never heard this man speak before. He's got it dead on. We need to focus on our similarities and how we can work together and improve understanding and compassion rather than to drive the wedge further.
TatsujinSan 2 months ago
First they cry "throw them to the lions" and when they get to feel the resistence they say "why cant we just get along" :) Atheists are such modern clowns hiding behind science which can not prove or disprove one way or other if God exist or not, so why not admit, like many of us belivers and non-belivers do : "WE DONT KNOW".
ulutirmik 2 months ago
@ulutirmik "they cry"
You shouldn't condemn a label on the basis of characteristics that don't actually apply to all of us. I would never say "throw them to the lions" about theists. Nor do I condemn all theists because of a few who have said that atheists are worthless and should die horrible deaths.
"Why not admit...'we don't know'"
Most do. You don't need to know there isn't a god to believe there isn't one. Just as the theist doesn't need to know there is a god to believe there is one.
TatsujinSan 2 months ago
Bahu bahu, WLC knows how to argue hence the crying of arheists. They never met a beliver who is able to argue and make sence without shouting, bahuuu.
ulutirmik 2 months ago
WLC is a Bible salesman.
rcguy69 3 months ago 2
WLC is a disgusting person, in the literal sense, he disgusts.
andresdohko 3 months ago 4
Currently, in all areas of scientific study, and in very academic and intellectual discipline covering every area of human thought and endeavour concerned with the real and material universe, there is no proof that there is any conscious design.
I mean evidence and proof in absolutely any form which is observable and testable at any level within our existing and observable and material universe.
In terms of what we can KNOW, at this time, that is the end of the matter.
myroseaccount 3 months ago
WLC = Deluded fanaticism
ToisanWC 3 months ago
Bill Cooke shows himself as a rational and compassionate man in this video. Unfortunately, men like him, whether theistic or atheistic, often ended up on a scaffold or a bonfire. And men like WLC, when they had temporal power sent them there. And there is nothing about any of the abrahamic faiths that has changed which would prevent that happening again if religious institutions once again achieve control of the state.
myroseaccount 3 months ago 7
@myroseaccount why is it that absolutely every single "christian" no matter what background or what type of character is never looked on with legitimacy? i mean, i'm a theist, and even i respect and appreciate dawkins, hitchens, dennet, and harris. i look at all of these men, including craig as completely rational and influential thinkers.
migol1984 3 months ago
@migol1984 That question contains enough to warrant a conference worth of debate. However, a more important question could be why is it that no man, or woman, can be considered as a legitimate candidate for the US presidency if they are not a christian. Indeed most polls show that an atheist would currently have less legitimacy than a theist who holds any believe in anything supernatural, in other words an Islamic fundamentalist would be almost more preferable than Richard Dawkins!
myroseaccount 3 months ago
@myroseaccount i actually agree with you. but let's be honest, two wrongs don't make a right. and this is what most atheist seem to be doing. albeit, i fully understand where you're coming from but my contention is a personal one. i've never had a problem with atheists, but almost everyone seems to have a problem with me when they find that i believe in a man who rose from the dead. why? sure you can poke fun of me, but why be my enemy? most theists face the same thing despite who they are
migol1984 3 months ago
@myroseaccount but i will say, i doubt an islamic fundamentalist would be more popular. it be interesting to see both dawkins and a muslim fundy running for president. i'd personally vote for dawkins, but then again it depends entirely on their policy because "religious" backgrounds or lack thereof should not be the determining factor of who is better at anything, and much less a rational and good human being.
migol1984 3 months ago
@myroseaccount I think that tendency comes from McCarthyism and the cold war. Communists were always demonized as 'Evil Atheists' and the prejudice stuck.
CommitToFocus 3 months ago
"I know not what you mean by God" is sometimes called igtheism, and someone espousing that belief really has no place at a formal debate about God's existence. Sounds like they never should have gone up against each other. Also, this gentleman sounds like a thorough-going relativist, debates with such thinkers are bound to be depressingly inconclusive and useless.
JWHurwitz 3 months ago
@JWHurwitz In every case I've witnessed, people asserting a god know not what they themselves mean... including the big name apologists like Craig. Existence of a being that supposedly transcends what we can observe is not a debateable topic in the first place, as support for an affirmative position is bound to be an argument from ignorance, and support for opposition is impossible less refutation of the arguments from ignorance.
urcorrect 3 months ago
I'm sorry, he's saying he was put in a 'moot' straightjacket, but surely he could have raised these issues during the course of the debate, he had all that time to speak, and in that time he is free to say anything he wants and Craig normally does, to be fair, respond to points raised by the other mooter.
chrish12345 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There's only one God, one divine consciousness, one conscious energy that created the universe with many names and dogmas created by men over many centuries in our desire to understand his essence. Dogmas might be real or not, but God is real, and to understand that reality you need to be in his wavelength.
dejesusluisx 3 months ago
A William Lane Craig debate is the last place you'll find talk of common ground or moving forward. Craig is all about winning debates. He wants to go for the highest profile targets available (if he thinks he can beat them) and display their scalps on his belt. Never mind silly things like "reaching an understanding" or "convincing people". I think it is fair to say that he wins the vast majority of his debates, but his arguments are not convincing in the least. And I doubt that bothers him.
havvyweponsman 3 months ago
Trying to be as impartial as I can, it just seems like Craig prefers formal debate and Cooke prefers a more informal, conversation-style debate. I'm assuming that Cooke was the challenger in this case (he speaks of talking with Craig's handlers, so to speak), and so Craig gets to pick the terms of the debate. And he naturally chose the format he personally prefers.
That's just how it goes.
peacerenity 3 months ago
Very impressive. Logical. Reasonable. Great advert for atheism.
TheHunnyhillbees 4 months ago
I'm not sure why someone of Dr. Cooke's stature would give credibility to Craig by bothering with him. The only things Craig were a pulpit and a respected member of the intellegensia standing with him on stage to make it look like he's taken seriously by them.
curlew0609 4 months ago
I am officially impressed beyond words. Thanks.
mcrd2001 4 months ago
Craig is a pseudo intellectual prick with reasonably good oratory. End of.
USERNAMEfieldempty 4 months ago 42
@USERNAMEfieldempty LOL!!! a pseudo-intellectual? The man is one of the most respected philosophers in the western hemisphere. There is a reason why Denette, hitchens and harris call him brilliant.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing ''[Craig is] one of the most respected philosophers in the western hemisphere.''
That is called an argument from ignorance. He's a one-trick pony with his tedious 'Cosmological Argument'. Which is merely a word-play trick regarding the nature of the pre-universe. He's a fraud.
USERNAMEfieldempty 4 months ago 22
@USERNAMEfieldempty It wasn't an argument. It was an opinion. Secondly, saying he is a one trick pony just shows how completely ignorant you are of his work. His specialty is not even the cosmological argument but the the theory of how God relates to time. That has been his major focus throughout his career. Not to mention all of the other arguments he uses. Way to not know a damn thing about him...
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing all that crap about either/or word-twisting. And 'moral doodies'. He's a charmless closed book with absolutely no sense of humour. And he is unreachable in a debate. He ignores every single thing offered to him. Hitchens et al repeatedly battered him and he just walks away looking smug. He's a pseudo-intellectual wanker.
USERNAMEfieldempty 4 months ago 3
@USERNAMEfieldempty Is that a joke? Not only did Hitchens admit defeat, but the audience voted Craig the winner of the debate. The admin of the atheist site commonsenseatheism said that "Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child".
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing Couldn't give a toss, mate. Anyone who has spent 20 years claiming he can prove God using word-play with reference to the 'time' before the big-bang is a joke. proper clever people wouldn't dream of spouting such over-ambitious claims. He is an intellectual pygmy. If you think he isn't... well, you know.
USERNAMEfieldempty 4 months ago 3
@USERNAMEfieldempty Craig has never said that he can prove the existence of God. Again, you are showing how ignorant you are of who he is and what he does. As for his work, thats what philosophers do, they pick a topic and write on it. You can call him any name you want but all of his opponents have a great respect for him, his work and his intellectual capability. If you dont think he's brilliant....well, you know.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing Professional philosophers do not "pick a topic and write about it". That's called a book report. Also, professionals specializing in the same field refer to each other as colleagues, not "opponents". I'd be much more impressed with Craig if he published his hypothetical ideas in a secular journal affiliated w/an accredited university. His theories could then be scrutinized by a committee of his peers and Craig could respond accordingly. This is how normal people operate.
ritter89 3 months ago 4
@AegeanKing And Craig was quite clearly spanked by Shelly Kagan in their debate set in a more discussion style format. No wonder he refused Cooke's offer on changing the format.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AegeanKing //Not only did Hitchens admit defeat//
Do you know where hitchens wrote that he lost? What should I google to find it?
Drgamedood 3 months ago
@AegeanKing If you think that facts and truths about the universe and human life are revealed during these unintentionally humorous 'debates', perhaps you should spend some time reading through published journals or eavesdropping on discussions between committee members of a peer review board. This boxing match nonsense seems to be a big hit with the hopelessly naive . Hitchens is a journalist who writes for Vanity Fair. The fact that Craig considers him an "opponent" is rather pathetic
ritter89 3 months ago
@USERNAMEfieldempty
Not even reasonably good oratory.
brendope 1 month ago
Remember, Craig is the one saying, and I quote (from Reasonable Faith):
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter."
In other words: Craig admits he's an intellectual dud.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago 2
This Bill Cooke bloke seems to be talking a great deal of sense.
huntmatuk 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@huntmatuk
"This Bill Cooke bloke seems to be talking a great deal of sense."
That's why Craig was so afraid of him. Craig knew he'd get his butt kicked square-wise if the format of the debate would change.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
i ALWAYS hated that debating format, WLC is so fond of.
First of all he's debating skills are appalling, because for one who isn't an intellectual, you can't follow him, because half the time he uses constant streams of sophisticated terms for basic words(i believe to confuse). He's the exact opposite of Dan Dannett when it comes to expressing. And second, he's style of debating is purely, not boring, eye-stabbing-ly boring,unlike Hitchens,Harris,D&D who constantly try to explain themselves.
mihaimoldo 4 months ago 2
It all fails without empirical proof. And LOTS of people have seen the flawed foundations in WLC's arguments, ergo nothing I say is empty rhetoric. You still haven't checked out those who have debunked him, have you? That much is obvious, so you're only deluding yourself by seeing only the side you want to see. Life's rosy when wearing pink glasses.
Cooke's discussion isn't about WLC's premises. You're headed down a straw man path with that one. Watch the video again to stay on track.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago 34
Emotional testimonies have nothing to do with the TRUTH of the worldview in question. Cooke is ignorant on this. Christians don't share completely different understandings of the Christian God. He's referring to denominations which are only different in regards to particular missions, geographical regions, and which teachings of Jesus is being ignored in other churches. They differ on the general view of God at all. Sorry, but Cooke needs to read up on church history more.
BassP86 5 months ago
@BassP86
Typo: They DON'T differ on the general view of God at all.
BassP86 5 months ago
Craig wouldn't be nearly as effective if he didn't exercise complete control over his circus. It's very much like faith healers using radio transmitters to pick their marks out of the audience. This revelation doesn't surprise me one bit. It's yet another example of the types of dishonesty that Christian apologists use when presenting and defending their cases.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago 2
@ChipArgyle Is that a joke? Don't be a hater. Christopher Hitchens himself said he respected Craig as a scholar and philosopher. Craig is effective because his arguments are effective. Don't try and degrade him cuz you dont like his message. Learn to respect people.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing Craig's arguments always begin with weak, inaccurate, or, to be respectful as you wish, somewhat deceptive foundations. His only strength is his command of language which he uses to his advantage to obfuscate and run his discussions in circles. In all his arguing, he still hasn't proven anything, but I'm sure he makes a great living off of it.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle Really? I guess thats why he is one of the most repsected philosophers in the western hemisphere. There is nothing in Craigs arguments that are weak or innacurate. Daniel Dennet, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have all said that Craig is an amazing philosopher. Christopher Hitchens also said that Craig was a first class scholar. I think you're a bit sore cuz his arguments are a bit above your comprehension level so you accuse him of arguing in circles. Another bitter atheist...
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing Assumptions will get you nowhere. And you're absolutely incorrect about his weaknesses and errors too. Perhaps it's time for you to stop being so one-sided in your support of him. Do a little research and have your eyes opened.
Like the rest of them, I'll believe Craig when I see some actual proof of which he spews. It matters not whether people think he's capable as a philosopher. I'm sure he'd be entertaining at arguing for the existence of pink unicorns too.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
@ChipArgyle LOL you need proof of logically sound arguments? Also, please be original. The pink unicorn thing is old and played out. The reason that Craig is so formidable and according to Sam Harris "puts the fear of God in many atheists", is because his arguments are good and logically sound. His arguments are good and convincing which is why Dan Dennett calls him "Brilliant". People deduce what is true or not by logical argumentation. He's a master logician with logical arguments.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing As I already mentioned and you've so quickly forgotten, most of his arguments start with flawed foundations, therefore they aren't logically sound. Yes, everyone needs proof of a concept in order for it to be determined reality; mere argument proves NOTHING. That's called rational thinking. In all his prattle, WLC has yet to prove there is a God. All he's proven is that he can dance around a topic.
Note that despite his polite niceties, Sam Harris remains an atheist.
ChipArgyle 5 months ago
I haven't quickly forgotten anything. You have only launched ad hominem attacks on Craig without showing a single example of how the premises of his arguments are based on "flawed foundations". Give an example of a flawed premise of any of his argument. Funny how none of his opponents attack his arguments as having flawed premises but you do.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing
"Give an example of a flawed premise of any of his argument."
Here's one: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Here's another one: "The universe has a beginning"
The may sound intuitively right, but they have absolutely no scientific foundation.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@ChipArgyle Lastly, Craig is not trying to prove the existence of God empirically. He is trying to give good logical grounds and evidence that belief in God is rational and that his existence is probable. That is the entire purpose of his argument. Does Dr. Cooke even once attack his premises as flawed? No, he doesnt. Your accusations are empty rhetoric.
AegeanKing 5 months ago
@AegeanKing Oh and Cooke isn't attacking Craig's arguments. He's attacking Craig's cheap debate tactics.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@AegeanKing
". He is trying to give good logical grounds and evidence that belief in God is rational and that his existence is probable"
And he fails. He never manages to convince anybody but the ones who already agree with his conclusions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer he fails? You have no idea how many people WLC has saved from the delusions of atheism. Not to mention that all of his opponents, including hitchens and harris, consider him to be a brilliant scholar. What a ridiculous statement you just made about not convincing anybody. How could you possibly know such a thing sitting in your mothers basement?
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@AegeanKing
"You have no idea how many people WLC has saved from the delusions of atheism."
Delusions of atheism? That phrase alone removes any reason to take you seriously.
"all of his opponents, including hitchens and harris, consider him to be a brilliant scholar."
They are simply being polite.You can often see them grimace when Craig spouts one of his many inane remarks.
"What a ridiculous statement you just made about not convincing anybody."
Name one non-believer he convinced.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Go to his forum on his website and read the discusisons and you will see how many people he has convinced. I know of nobody PERSONALLY because everybody I know has a faith of some sort already. As for hitchens and harris, Hitchens ADMITTED defeat and the crowd voted Craig the winner of their debate. Hitchens was not being polite, he was being honest. Craig is a first rate scholar. Even the admin for the atheist site commonsenseatheism said Craig whipped hitchens like a child.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Ur just another hater and militant atheist who is so obsessed with his own unbelief that he actually takes time to watch videos about a subject that he doesnt even believe in. Its actually pretty sad...
AegeanKing 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AegeanKing
"Ur just another hater and militant atheist "
Ad hominem attacks won't garner you any points. And what's "ur"? Is that supposed to be a word? Craigbots are getting dumber by the day, I swear.
And you also happen to fail to answer my request.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 months ago
@AegeanKing There's no such thing as "delusions of atheism" as it's only a lack of belief in a god. WLC is an incredibly smart scholar and a great speaker. That doesn't prove god exists or what WLC says is true (plenty of other xtians disagree with WLC - who's right?). The only people he convinces are the ones that are already blindly following.
PlutoPowered 4 months ago
@AegeanKing Just so you know, Sam was joking when he said that.
Drgamedood 4 months ago
@Drgamedood He was not joking. He was making a point. Harris was trying to say that Craig is a formidable opponent and his arguments should not be taken lightly. Hitchens himself said that Craig was a first rate scholar.
AegeanKing 4 months ago
what a great human being
MrDolphinmaster 5 months ago
Thank you for this post. I'm going to look for the debate referred to. Thank you.
jobfromdayone 5 months ago
Absolutely beautiful. Thrillingly well put.
attitudinous 6 months ago
The problem is about debating about debate: most christians and other religious actually have no experience of 'God', have a vague idea of God. I wonder whether the word has any meaning at all. Sartre and Foucalt were good at showing how words can give us the illusion of being, when infact we argue about ideas with no actuality. This is absurd.
76endurathon 6 months ago
Actually good on you Dr. Cooke, we disagree, but the position you take I find measured and offered in a true spirit of discussion.