Read Bart Ehrman's book - "Misquoting Jesus", he gives a good explanation of the evidence for supernatural events.
Craig continually claims that a personal God's existence is the most plausible explanation for an event unless: A.Science has an alternative explanation OR B. Atheism can disprove God's existence. He allows no room for option C. No one knows at this time. Why?
Why can't atkins just sit and quietly be confused instead of giving voice to his confusion over and over? Instead of reminding us all with each word he is hopelessly out of his league, he could sit there and chew bubble gum or play with soap bubbles or something
@mollkatless he simply wasn't prepared at all. he must have thought it would've been easy, but all the arguments clearly stunned him. like the argument about a biologist claiming that the probability of evolution is so small that God must have triggered it. there are eminent biologists out there that don't believe that. there are scientists out there that believe the universe is teeming with life. craig uses this argument in several of the videos, and it should've been rebutted.
Your statement is complete at "he simply wasn't prepared at all". You don't need to say that Craigs arguments were so far afield that poor atkins was shocked into incoherence. He wasn't only responding to Craig, he was supposed to have something to say independent of Craig, & he didn't.
His point, the brilliant thesis that he prepared was - you are lazy if you believe in God, and science is omnipotent - he probably wrote that on a cue card moments before the debate started, his full prep
This assertion on the absolute truth of 'modern science' is quite shocking. Only this week 'particles' have exceeded the speed of light. The Standard Model is in crisis. Science is as far from accounting for everything as it ever was.
psychopaths have a better chance of survival and mating these days than they did back in the day, that's why the number of psychopaths in the world is slowly increasing. in some cases, psychopathic behavior can be beneficial for passing on your genes in today's capitalistic society.
it makes sense that evolution created morality. if one man had mutated into being moral, his children inherited the genes, he would have a much better chance surviving as a team by working together to hunt large animals and to take care of the infants of the group. people without the genes to work as a team and develop morality would not have survived as easily. however, some would have survived. and they do exist. they are psychopaths who do not have the genes for working in a team.
@clembashing = can you explain to me why when atkins is blathering on incoherently someone doesn't stun-gun him? so Craig can get in a word edgewise, and logic and reason can again be heard in this "debate" - please I need to know
Notice the mitigation that Peter repeatedly uses in this section of the debate, this is sad but it is something that many ill informed people use again and again. It only demonstrates their ignorance but people are foolish enough to fall for it most times.
Both parties fail to deliver to this day. They both hide behind an utopia of two different approaches. The scientific arguments rest on the "prophecy" that someday it will be able provide a scientific answer to EVERYTHING - that we just have to wait. Creationists say the same thing, only that we have to wait for a revelation or the re-emergence of Jesus Christ.
@Inskyismom Yeah, but consider this: science has actually made an astounding progress towards explaining everything, whereas religion(or at least Christianity, I can't speak for others) loses its arguments due to that progress and scientific discoveries. Meaning, that science is somewhat more credible than religion in this situation. To be fair, though, one must agree that it doesn't mean it's right.
However, I am amazed at how poorly dr. Atkins debated here.
@Bulasz I beg to differ. Science in its Renaissance's era came about with the encouragement/funded by the religious establishments and we inherited the accumulated benefits that came along.
@Bulasz I beg to differ. Science in its Renaissance's era came about with the encouragement/funded by the religious establishments and we inherited the accumulated benefits that came along.
Perhaps concepts about our universe and how it acts would be good in order to give other plausible reasons for the existence of the universe to disprove god or at least provide alternatives. Our universe could be ever morphing like a cosmic butterfly, or like a wind up clock, or something more bizarre and unheard of, but god could be a possible explanation.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
wow its amazing how bias atheists can be sometimes. The guy clearly does not even want to consider a god in any sense. "follow the evidence, wherever it leads" not where you want it to lead Doctor Atkins...
Surely in term of history, witnesses to the death of the most powerful and influential man of the time, ‘Caesar’ are thousands of times more reliable than a couple of fanatical, superstitious and ignorant men who lived 2000 years ago.
@upliftzippy And you wonder why noone is replying to your comment. Your use of ridiculous assumptious generalisations makes you look immature and fragile.
@assasincomedy In what way is what I said a 'ridiculous generalisation' or immature? If my blatant use of common sense has caused me to look 'fragile' in your eyes then I'm extremely sorry.
This god guy is really clutching at straws here. Appealing to philosophical arguments as evidence of divine intervention ignores two irrrefutable facts:
Paradigm shifts in the human view of beauty, morals, ethics, etc. that continue to this day.
The base fact that philosophy exists on the fringe of understanding [like religion] and science has continually pushed back this fringe.
.and the bible is hearsay after the fact. That evidence would not even stand up in a court of law.
1. Paradigm shifts certainly hasn't affected views on murder. Maybe atheists would one day vindicate psychopaths and consider our stigmatization of them as "old-fashioned" like gays.
2. We are nowhere near the total completion of human understanding. It would be sensible if what there is to be known is limited (i.e. just the physical world) but we know for a fact that there's more.
3. Human law is mutable, because it is artificial. When you are its victim, it's a different story.
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!! (4)
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!! (3)
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
I personally would like to apologize for all those claiming to be Christians on this comment board, who seem to think that simply because an atheist made some bad arguments, that they have the right to insult atheists in such arrogant and inappropriate ways. This is totally hypocritical, and myself being a Christian am appalled at their behavior.
Also, I love how atheists always say "Its impossible! Its impossible that God exists etc. etc." But when someone points how that atheists minds are closed because they say that its not even a possibility that God exists they ALWAYS RIGHT AWAY change their opinion to "Well its UNLIKELY!"
Atkins whole machine analogy failed as well. Occasionally anthropomorphic *terminology* is used in referring to machines, but you cannot "train" a computer the way living beings are "trained." Machines are programmed, not "trained" which means to teach a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over time, these are all terms of reference exclusive to sentient (able to perceive or feel) beings.
Atkins : Evolutiondidit - somehow, but don't ask me for evidence.
Q : How did we get our moral sensibilities ?
Atkins : Evolutiondidit - but don't ask me how or why.
Q : How did scientists come to believe in evolution ?
Atkins : Evolutiondi....err... I mean, by our rational thinking, because we are scientists- much, much, smarter than you. YOUR beliefs are the product of evolutionary forces. OUR beliefs are the result of clear thinking.
@Jesrael1986M Evolution is a fact and one of the strongest scientific theories (one of the things in this universe that we know the most certainly), both, and you are putting words into Atkins mouth. There is no clear thinking in your post, just wrong understanding and bias. It's ironic that the only refute against atheism is to call it a religion with religious-type belief, as if that helps religion become true.
Atkins did somewhat better in this portion of the debate than in his earlier putting forth of his bizarre illogical world view. He failed to present a reasonable unbiased view on the historicity of Jesus though.
Atkins is weak on the aesthetics point. "You can train a machine....etc" Yes, you can train a machine, but that requires a human input at the beginning, i.e. the training. Take away the human input and a machine wouldn't know Mozart to be music, or Dikens to be literature, etc, etc..
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
@katpiering123 Richard Dawkins just doesn't consider Dr. Craig worthy... and I've watched all of his materials and agree. Although I'd love to see Dawkins put him in his place too. Dr. Craig is another Hovind... lost in is beliefs with a misunderstanding of what it is to known something.
@katpiering123 Richard Dawkins is a scientist and William Lane Craig is a philosopher and, although I'm sure the debate could be entertaining, it rarely amounts to a good, meaningful debate when you put a scientist on one side and a philosopher on the other when it comes to the topic of religion.
No, Dawkins is a coward, and that's why he avoids Dr. Craig like the plague. Not my own opinion, but also a lot of atheists. You state that Richard Dawkins is a scientist, and Dr. Craig is a philosopher? Then why is a biologist making philosophically incorrect assertions regarding the existence of God? I'm sure he wrote a book about it, even. Did Dr. Craig ever write about evolutionary biology? It's only fair, then, that Dawkins should man up and face his chastisement.
@IoannesBellator I agree with Craig that Dawkins' "The god delusion" is not a good or important book from a philosophical perspective and, for that very reason, I think a debate between the two would be very redundant. I would however love to see Daniel Dennet take on Craig in debate.
Not even old priests in churches. It's usually the uneducated hicks from the American boonies with "Bible learnins" that he picks his fights with. Why? Because, like all atheists, they can't die for a cause, much less risk to be humiliated, and so they pick on people stupider than them and consider it a victory for science. Watch the arrogant wretch talk about how "I will win a debate with you" and still avoid little, ol' Dr. Craig. Even making excuses as how "he's busy".
@IoannesBellator He is busy alright, busy running away from William Lane Craig. The saddest thing of it all is that there are actually people listening too and believing Richard Dawkins. Well, there will always be people who believe the fools and liars. Since there were even people who believed what the Pharisees said about Yahushua/Jesus back in the day. And still believe them today obeying the Talmud.
@katpiering123 Sigh... Why would he debate a scientist on theology? He's a scientist himself for god sake. It makes perfect sense for him to debate BISHOPS on THEOLOGICAL ISSUES because of their theistic beliefs.
@upliftzippy but he uses scientific arguements against someone who is not as exposed to these scientific arguements. Send in a lion to fight a deer. Thats really brave.
"There were real witnesses to ceasers death" As if the early Christians were fake witnesses, who just so happened to completely revolutionize the world. This Atkin's fellow needs to clean up his act, I mean these so called scientists are not even logical, it appears they are more invested in creed then anyone. Craig is intellectually on point and preaching the word of truth with precision and joy. The mediator is also excellent - very good presentation, thanks for the upload.
7:47 This mediator is on point. This Oxford educated idiot has no idea what he's talking about - 12 simple fishermen? The mediator's comment of "people like Paul?" is exactly right. Paul was one of the most respected authorities of the time - not some simple peasant. This Atkins fellow really is a low level Con man of material science - it's no wonder he looks so stressed out and angry with these two heavy weights who are delivering clear and consistent arguments he can't stand up against.
Dr. Atkins says that he "believes" - is that not a statement of faith? he is saying someting but he has no clue whether things that are called miracles wil be able to proved by science. Can that statement alone be proved by science, it cannot for it is not based on proof.
I love how this "scientist" claims The witnesses to the resurrection are liars but the people for Caesar are truth sayers. He is claiming what he wants to be true. You can't be a scientist and nit pick what history or evidence and claim it is science.
@TheBbg83 There are many more and better historical facts available attesting to the existence of Caesar. And not only that, there is also far far less explaining power required to carry these facts, for they do not require the whole natural order to be suspended. And as a bonus, to what end would a devious plan cater which massivly obscurred the historical records with fake data of some roman emperor that never existed, it's preposterous, that would need a good explanation as well.
@prn72271@prn72271 Do you really think that this is a strong point to make? The same would then be true for the idea that gravity will hold me to the ground till the day that I die. Ack! You've got me now, I guess I might as well start believing in god now because there is no difference (apparently) in supported belief and unsupported belief.
@TheHardProblem You have missed your own point, you were talking about "HISTORY". If we are looking at "HISTORY" in many cases it takes faith for we were not there when it happened, we have to just believe that what we are being told is true. Some things (maybe many) are not.
As far as gravity, you have experience that on earth you do not float into space, so based on that knowledge and all of the countless people who have no floated into space you really dont need faith.
@prn72271 lol. if you floated into space that'd be evidence that some other object had a stronger gravitational pull than Earth. The mere fact that the Earth exists as it does is evidence of gravity.
@prn72271 What is, if not history, that which happend last year, yesterday or a (milli)second ago? You say there is support for jesus to be the christ, yet you seem to dismiss the belief in ceasar. How much do you value evidence and reason in deciding what happend in history or what is more likely the truth of the matter in any case? Atkins would reply that many miracles have either been proven false or explained by science, making it more likely that others would follow a similar fate.
@prn72271 Let me give you a little philosophical thought experiment. What evidence can you bring about that would refute the claim that the universe came into existence 1 second ago with all the life, thoughts and feelings you have now? Your idea of history of yourself could be a fake in that regard, just memories implanted in your brain.
I think that I lived in the past therefor I did. You suggest that I made all my life up a second ago which makes no sense in anyway shape or form. Also who created these fake memories? Was it you, was it a monkey? You idiotically try to come up with a philisophical question you believe can't be answered but it can by using basic intuition. I don't need some grand philosophical explanation why I know I wasn't just created because that is logically incoherient.
The Koran makes extraordinarily claims too, 1.5 Billion people believe them. Yet you don't? Your reason is because you have been indoctrinated into Christianity. I don't believe Christianity or Islam because they make extraordinarily claims, with very little evidence.
You're gods going to send me to hell though, because... I'm consistent?
@cashernandes1 ha, what was even funnier in that segment was Buckley's comment wheh Atkins says i "cannot remember who I buried my mother" and Buckley says "maybe there was no need to memorialize that burial!" oooh, low blow! lol
"There were real witnesses to Caesar's death... there were... there" 5:20
LOL, I deemed it impossible to drag oneself lower than that. Atkins proclaims that the believers "desperately want to believe in God" but it's HIM who wants desperately to believe that Jesus was just a regular guy and God didn't exist. It's quite clear, lol.
@cashernandes1 What is quite clear is the opposite of what you said, and exactly what Atkins said, believers desperately want to believe in God and become lost in it. Why does every one religious think it's just their God or no God at all? Why do they not realize their own atheistic beliefs in other Gods is the same as atheists who reject their God? They would surely accept Atkins rebuttal against Allah, for instance.
@matthewdoucette That is a straw man, You can't dismiss every god for the same reasons, as there are many different types of gods, Thor and Zeus, being gods that we can quickly dismiss because their nature of lightning and thunder has been explained away by science, but the idea of the Christian God cannot be so quickly explained away because His nature exists outside of the universe, and is not limited to simple things in nature such as lightning...
@philosophizer149 It's not a straw man. Your God used to live the sky and we've been to the sky and he's not there. You just modify your God over and over to deny the evidence of his non-existence. Now he's outside of the universe and time itself. If we could "go" there and find he's not there (as we are now doing in science), you move him further away still. I quickly dismiss your God just as I do Thor, it's not a straw man. You have to provide evidence, not just an assertion.
@matthewdoucette Not necessarily, the God Christians are supposing is not a retreating God as He has interacted with human kind and become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Christians attest to Gods continuing interaction within believers. Whats more, theologians, like Augustine proposed that God has existed outside of time 1500 years before science explained lightning or volcanoes. Therefore I do not see your point that God is retreating farther and farther away...
@philosophizer149 Other Gods have also interacted and helped write books and send messages to us humans via prophets... and believers in those other gods attest to continued interaction... it's all the same. The only difference is your indoctrination into your religion. You are as lost as they are. When you are outside of it, Christianity and Islam and all the others looks the same. People are willing to die for Islam, so strength of conviction is not a measure of truth.
Atkins got humiliated and Craig didn't even mean to do that. Unlike Dawkins, Craig doesn't need to offend anyone to feel better about himself: he's well equipped with knowledge, facts and logic.
@glorp896 As you've enlightened yourself to believe in an alternative reality based on unconfirmed evidence to disprove the existence of God-- by and through only theoretical supposition that preys on the emotion and self-purpose. How can you refute proven historical and archeological evidence of the written record of biblical scripture which surpasses all other historical writings from Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Alcibiades, Antisthenes and so on to be over 98% accurate in its validity.
@Olehcim look up BELIEVE, science requires NO BELIEF, but rather knowledge and zero faith in ANYTHING... i'm guided by the empirical data & it requires no belief or believing in it to acknowledge it as knowledge - that may be a bit of a stretch away from words so guided by religion but i'm willing to do it for the sake of reason, as reason and faith shall never the twain meet. i don't THINK there is any evidence to disprove/prove the existence of god; god is such a concept - too incoherent...
@glorp896 Science requires no belief? You've just proved you dont even know anything about science! Science is entirely based on unproven beliefs, without which it couldnt exist. For example, mathematics requires the belief that there is inherent logic in mathematics, but this cant be proved, the theory of relativity is based on the belief that light travels as aconstant in one direction but this cant be proved, it has to be assumed in order to hold to the theory
@relarerfhjk thats right, look up the definition, and i'm really using the religious definition, there are more generalized definitions. look up belief and believe, you will be surprised at how religious these words are!, unless i need to look up some newer more secular definition beyond my 1980 websters. no where in the scientific method is the word belief used. look that up as well... i'm just making a distinction between reason and faith. "BELIEF IS THE DEATH OF INTELLIGENCE" - R.A. Wilson
@relarerfhjk so there you go, in your own post using a more accurate word, assume... you have reason to assume something is true as you test it to be so... or the word hypothesis is a better replacement for belief... i know belief/believe is so common and basic in our language, but for the sake of separating ourselves more distinctly from religion and superstition we should use more techno lingo...FAITH is actually a synonym of BELIEF and of course we atheists think FAITH is pretty evil...
1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real "ideals we believe in" "believes in ghosts"
- so looking up the word believe makes my point better than belief as believe is more spiritual right from the start... and yet the list of synonyms is not as good a list to discredit like BELIEF-FAITH... so anyway, thats my point... just trying to make the english language more scientific as we shake off the shackles of religious wording...
@relarerfhjk we already know there is no straight line single direction, a vector is theoretical, a construct of the mind like PLATOS FORMS... everything is curved space... long distance photon line formations are all a relativity and dumbing down of the universe, especially when you try to wrap a photon around a star, the gravity will quickly change the direction of the light, or past a black hole for that matter... lines are illusions, axiomatic and arbitrary as we dumb down 10+ dimensions...
@TheOlehcim yes, the bible is invaluable as to SOME of its history - but certainly the gospels are quite a stretch... for one they are logistically unconnected and contradictory, not to mention all those claims of god incarnation and such and miracles... so this can't be called history... its MYTH...
i'm just glad there is so much of a fanatical following of the bible for self interest and power grabs over time than it has kept some very old history alive... that is at least some consolation
A very important point is that God is never a final explanation, for the simple reason that God Himself is also an object of knowledge, experience and investigation. Once you understood that God created the universe, the questioning is not over, it is just beginning. It is just an upgrade: you jump from the mere cosmological point of view to the metaphysical point of view. God is not an "explanation". He is Reality itself, just taken at its highest and more encompassing dimension.
Phylosophical "proof" for god will only take ths far, but at some pint you have to give actual hard evidence for his existence. So even though Atkins is an awful debater, you can't say Craig won because he didn't give any evidence for god, but the bible and his story of "bible scholars" that take it as fact.
@DaGavinX Lolwut? What happens in philosophy stays in philosophy. You can't make philosophy and then say "well now let's find hard evidence for this." You can't present 'actual hard [scientific] evidence' for one's stance on ethics — heck, just the idea of that is a complete clusterfuck of nonsense! The same happens with the God issue, which is philosophical at its core, more specifically from the field of metaphysics. In NO philosophical issue you get to a point where you need 'hard evidence.'
@TheMythus "What happens in philosophy stays in philosophy"
You're right. If so you would agree that god, for instance, is useless to explain the natural world and that if it doesn't require evidence is not posible to make a good case for it.
@DaGavinX It depends on what you mean by the verb "explain." In regards to the natural world, God explains it from a purely existential perspective (what is its purpose? why is there something rather than nothing? — again, you have to see this through the drama of human existence), rather than a scientific/mechanical one (how does it work? what are the processes underlying its functioning? why does it behave in such-and-such way?)
@TheMythus I guess I see it an too scientifical way. So I don't care if, for example, evolution makes people feel good and purposeful. So if there's a way to explain something in a naturalistic way, I think we shouldn't resot to theology.
@pimper347 Apparently you don't know the host. He's passed away now, but was a highly respected intellectual and conservative. His name is William F. Buckley Jr. and he was a Catholic and did smoke pot and argued for its legalization.
I have been watching many debates recently regarding this issue and I have to say watching Atkins here must be extremely painful for any athiest who has to be represented by this idiot who seems to be eloquent in idiocy. Unbelievable that someone of such education could have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts of logic. Listening further I think is an insult to the human intelligence. I would much rather listen to semi-coherent arguements of Hitchens dawkins or even shermer
did any one notice at around 8:00 the mediator says "let me pick on you" (directed at Craig. Atkins says (you can hear it in the background) "it's about time".
At 4:40 Atkins INTERRUPTS Craig in the middle of one of his answers. Atkins decided to interrupt one of Craig's answers and for the next 3-4 minutes got "picked on" because his arguments were horrible. Had he never opened his mouth he never would have allowed all of us to see how misguided and foolish he really is.
I also enjoy the fact that you started keeping score after the game was over.
The dude is a fish out of water. Something has happened to Atkins in his life that makes him believe that there is no God. My prayers are for this man. I hope he realizes his mistakes and repents.
@octobrick81 Your prayers are for him? How arrogant. There is no God. Lane did nothing to prove the existence of God, but for what reason does anyone conclude that he wins this? There is no proof of God. There is no NEED for God The main reason why people believe in God is because they fear the unknown. I can't BELIEVE that people like you BELIEVE in something which their has NEVER been any sign of EXISTING. Your argument is so pointless and invalid. God does not exist, and faith doesn't cut it.
you seemed really angry that I said I would pray fo Atkins. You say there is no proof of God, and that we don't need God. Do you also believe that everyone should have their own beliefs, or do you belief everyone should believe in atheism? Because if you believe that we all should have our beliefs then you shouldn't care if I want to pray for this clearly misguided man.
It is obvious that our world was created. Things do not just pop into being, just like we did not
@octobrick81 No, but it's when nutjobs like Sarah Palin are in the running for president of the USA... and, the millions of other religous nutjobs who all believe they're right. It's then, when I feel the need to defend myself from religion.
Feel FREE to believe in what you want to believe in and what makes you feel comfortable, but DO NOT bother me with it-- keep it well away.
Oh, "Things do not just pop into being, just like we did not ", scientist are you?
@octobrick81 so it was yahweh that just always existed and abracadabra'd everything into existance?.. yeah? an ancient tribal bloodthirsty man made god.. sorry i'll stick to science.
@lukeism2 notice how WLC is trying to interrupt and basically acting like a jack ass to his opponent showing no respect whatsoever while Atkins is showing him the outmost most respect. Whenever Atkin makes a valid point, Craig just shifts the topic which basically 'disproves' everything his opponent has side. Then Craig goes on a short nonsensical but complicated philosophical rambling.
@AgeOfReasonXXI well it is still a skill. He makes a living off it in fact. Probably a pretty good one too just like Ravi Zacharias but unlike that that man, this guy doesn't seem as friendly.
I am sorry to tell you this, but by the argument of Atkins everything comes back to nothing. This means that there can't be a score of 1-0 unless somewhere Atkin's is 0-1. Meaning that Atkins is equal to the "nutjobs". Also, this whole hour has been clear evidence how ill-equipped Atkins is in this argument.
people got crucafied alot back then - i think jesus was probably just some eccentric preacher - and it was years upon years after that people actually wrote about it. his legend grew and so did his superpowers.
What premises? Resurrection? The virgin birth? Your only source of information is just a couple of documents that were written in some obscure part of the middle east. You actually elevate scripture above science!
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. All Atkins has done the entire debate is guess, assume and blunder through blindly. Fisherman? Yes SOME of them were fisherman which back then was a very respected trade. But they were also tax collectors, doctor and so on.
@GodTheHypothesis I have no idea? Are you implying that there were no forms of medcine or people educated in health? Since year dot tribal people have been using forms of home made medicine which have been quite successful so to assume they didn't have any under the Roman Empire is ridiculous.
Yes I am implying that! Have you not read any history? The average life expectancy in ancient Rome was about 30. They had no idea about real medicine! It wasn't until the 19th century and Germ Theory that we really developed genuine medicine (and life expectancy more than doubled). 17th century europe still used leeches as a treatment!!
@GodTheHypothesis You moron. Medicine can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. To quote wikipedia "Ancient Egypt developed a large, varied and fruitful medical tradition. Herodotus described the Egyptians as "the healthiest of all men, next to the Libyans",[1] due to the dry climate and the notable public health system that they possessed." Luke was a physician. The definition of physician is "also known as doctor of medicine, medical doctor, or simply doctor. Even the most remote peoples have their
@GodTheHypothesis own forms of medicine. What would a Roman soldier after battle? Sit down and die? In fact the life expectancy in Rome was 48 once a child reached 5, and the Roman Empire was much bigger than Rome.
Lol, "once a child reached 5" - you've basically just changed the definition of average life expectancy. That almost renders the argument pointless.
I'm not saying they didn't have anything called 'medicine'. I'm saying most of it wasn't medicine by todays standards. If you look at some of the 'medicine' they used, we know today that it was completely useless.
@GodTheHypothesis Whatever your definition of "life expectancy" is that doesn't disprove whether they had doctors or medicine back in the Roman Empire so that "argument" right there is the one that's pointless.
Me: Are you implying that there were no forms of medicine?
You: "Yes I am implying that!"
Then you say you're not implying they didn't have medicine? Wanna make your mind up? 2,000 or so years ago they didn't medicine to the standard that we do today? No shit eh? And for a moment I was
Well I was using a modern definition of medicine. Few of the herbal solutions used by the Romans would be considered good medicine today. By that standard, I couls say they weren't medicine. Some of their treatments might have worked for simple things yes but they had NO chance of treating any serious diseases. If you caught cancer or smallpox, you just died!
@GodTheHypothesis I'll leave you to do your own homework on Roman medicine. New inventions are created everyday. Using your logic if we found a cure for ALL cancer tomorrow we'd have been somehow backward today even though we're up to date in the field of medicines.
Well I don't really need to do my homework, you can just tell me 1 serious disease that the Romans knew how to treat. I'll then apologise and retract my statements!
@GodTheHypothesis Your statements had nothing to do with pin pointing specific diseases which were cured by the Romans. You edge away from the topic at hand after every post.
No, you just misunderstood my meaning. What I meant to say was that, by modern standards, the Romans didn't have a clue about medicine. They certainly had things THEY called medicine but the fact that they had no chance of treating anything serious shows how limited they were. Unless you can give me an example saying otherwise.
Well they weren't. There were roads in ancient Athens. They certainly built a lot of roads though yeah. That's not what we were discussing though. And yes, their roads would have been primitive by today's standards.
@GodTheHypothesis You've completely lost the plot. You can't hold a logical argument by saying that because something doesn't meet todays standards it's somehow backward. Of course it's not as complex as what we have today nobody is disputing that so I don't get why you keep saying it. You may as well say nothing is advanced because there will always be something greater to come next.
4:55- The VERY Same thing can be said of Darwinian evolutionary scientists!!!! They believe the same thing. ... seriously just watch Atkins, insert his foot in his mouth.
His tomb is still there and for generations people go there. Jesus it is said learnt some things from India between age 12 and 30 and applied that in his place after return. So he went to kashmir and died there
The audience and moderator are obviously biased, ignorant and S T U P I D
davveist 1 week ago
Read Bart Ehrman's book - "Misquoting Jesus", he gives a good explanation of the evidence for supernatural events.
Craig continually claims that a personal God's existence is the most plausible explanation for an event unless: A.Science has an alternative explanation OR B. Atheism can disprove God's existence. He allows no room for option C. No one knows at this time. Why?
daleshankins 1 month ago
The mediator is an ass
obrienpl 1 month ago
@obrienpl lrn2williamfbuckley
bFuddlez 1 month ago
Why can't atkins just sit and quietly be confused instead of giving voice to his confusion over and over? Instead of reminding us all with each word he is hopelessly out of his league, he could sit there and chew bubble gum or play with soap bubbles or something
mollkatless 2 months ago
@mollkatless he simply wasn't prepared at all. he must have thought it would've been easy, but all the arguments clearly stunned him. like the argument about a biologist claiming that the probability of evolution is so small that God must have triggered it. there are eminent biologists out there that don't believe that. there are scientists out there that believe the universe is teeming with life. craig uses this argument in several of the videos, and it should've been rebutted.
clembashing 1 month ago
Your statement is complete at "he simply wasn't prepared at all". You don't need to say that Craigs arguments were so far afield that poor atkins was shocked into incoherence. He wasn't only responding to Craig, he was supposed to have something to say independent of Craig, & he didn't.
His point, the brilliant thesis that he prepared was - you are lazy if you believe in God, and science is omnipotent - he probably wrote that on a cue card moments before the debate started, his full prep
mollkatless 1 month ago
This assertion on the absolute truth of 'modern science' is quite shocking. Only this week 'particles' have exceeded the speed of light. The Standard Model is in crisis. Science is as far from accounting for everything as it ever was.
tenbear5 2 months ago
psychopaths have a better chance of survival and mating these days than they did back in the day, that's why the number of psychopaths in the world is slowly increasing. in some cases, psychopathic behavior can be beneficial for passing on your genes in today's capitalistic society.
clembashing 3 months ago
@clembashing = dont take offense, but you make atkins sound intelligent, composed and top of his game, nice work! That is no small accomplishment
mollkatless 2 months ago
it makes sense that evolution created morality. if one man had mutated into being moral, his children inherited the genes, he would have a much better chance surviving as a team by working together to hunt large animals and to take care of the infants of the group. people without the genes to work as a team and develop morality would not have survived as easily. however, some would have survived. and they do exist. they are psychopaths who do not have the genes for working in a team.
clembashing 3 months ago
@clembashing = can you explain to me why when atkins is blathering on incoherently someone doesn't stun-gun him? so Craig can get in a word edgewise, and logic and reason can again be heard in this "debate" - please I need to know
mollkatless 2 months ago
"Maybe there was no reason to memorialize" the burial of your mother...? Mr. Buckley sure slaps Dr. Atkins, but he doesn't even realize it!
cheagan 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Peter Atkins. You are destroyed!!
MysteryoftheGods 3 months ago
7:41 troll face
Falcondick69 3 months ago
Peter said, someone was buried, but then again, I can't remember who buried my mother.... That's toooo funny.
stevelovesgod 4 months ago
@stevelovesgod That was so odd. Says a lot about him.
YoussefS 4 months ago
Notice the mitigation that Peter repeatedly uses in this section of the debate, this is sad but it is something that many ill informed people use again and again. It only demonstrates their ignorance but people are foolish enough to fall for it most times.
lateralaus 4 months ago
Both parties fail to deliver to this day. They both hide behind an utopia of two different approaches. The scientific arguments rest on the "prophecy" that someday it will be able provide a scientific answer to EVERYTHING - that we just have to wait. Creationists say the same thing, only that we have to wait for a revelation or the re-emergence of Jesus Christ.
Inskyismom 4 months ago
@Inskyismom Yeah, but consider this: science has actually made an astounding progress towards explaining everything, whereas religion(or at least Christianity, I can't speak for others) loses its arguments due to that progress and scientific discoveries. Meaning, that science is somewhat more credible than religion in this situation. To be fair, though, one must agree that it doesn't mean it's right.
However, I am amazed at how poorly dr. Atkins debated here.
Bulasz 4 months ago in playlist Current
@Bulasz I beg to differ. Science in its Renaissance's era came about with the encouragement/funded by the religious establishments and we inherited the accumulated benefits that came along.
jininn 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Bulasz I beg to differ. Science in its Renaissance's era came about with the encouragement/funded by the religious establishments and we inherited the accumulated benefits that came along.
jininn 3 months ago
simple like Paul ... ahahaha !!
ikawpipa 4 months ago
Perhaps concepts about our universe and how it acts would be good in order to give other plausible reasons for the existence of the universe to disprove god or at least provide alternatives. Our universe could be ever morphing like a cosmic butterfly, or like a wind up clock, or something more bizarre and unheard of, but god could be a possible explanation.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
Man... I love Jesus.
LiveForGreatness 6 months ago
wow its amazing how bias atheists can be sometimes. The guy clearly does not even want to consider a god in any sense. "follow the evidence, wherever it leads" not where you want it to lead Doctor Atkins...
REDRAGON12345 6 months ago
Surely in term of history, witnesses to the death of the most powerful and influential man of the time, ‘Caesar’ are thousands of times more reliable than a couple of fanatical, superstitious and ignorant men who lived 2000 years ago.
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy And you wonder why noone is replying to your comment. Your use of ridiculous assumptious generalisations makes you look immature and fragile.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@assasincomedy In what way is what I said a 'ridiculous generalisation' or immature? If my blatant use of common sense has caused me to look 'fragile' in your eyes then I'm extremely sorry.
upliftzippy 5 months ago
@upliftzippy No need to be sorry for making yourself look woefully ignorant.
assasincomedy 5 months ago
@assasincomedy wow, now that's immature.
upliftzippy 5 months ago
This god guy is really clutching at straws here. Appealing to philosophical arguments as evidence of divine intervention ignores two irrrefutable facts:
Paradigm shifts in the human view of beauty, morals, ethics, etc. that continue to this day.
The base fact that philosophy exists on the fringe of understanding [like religion] and science has continually pushed back this fringe.
.and the bible is hearsay after the fact. That evidence would not even stand up in a court of law.
Huttate1 6 months ago
@Huttate1
1. Paradigm shifts certainly hasn't affected views on murder. Maybe atheists would one day vindicate psychopaths and consider our stigmatization of them as "old-fashioned" like gays.
2. We are nowhere near the total completion of human understanding. It would be sensible if what there is to be known is limited (i.e. just the physical world) but we know for a fact that there's more.
3. Human law is mutable, because it is artificial. When you are its victim, it's a different story.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator
1, You dogmatic bigotry shines through.
2. You do not even understand the definition of the word 'fact'
3. And you obfuscate .
In three replies you exhibit the standard failures of your belief system; dogmatic bigotry, ignorance and obfuscation.
Huttate1 6 months ago
Dr. Craig is so patient lol you can see how bad he wants to talk...
Willbattle88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!! (4)
jefersontorres 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!! (3)
jefersontorres 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
jefersontorres 7 months ago
I personally would like to apologize for all those claiming to be Christians on this comment board, who seem to think that simply because an atheist made some bad arguments, that they have the right to insult atheists in such arrogant and inappropriate ways. This is totally hypocritical, and myself being a Christian am appalled at their behavior.
philosophizer149 7 months ago
Always funny to see religious people get destroyed.
1878EFC2008 7 months ago
Atkin's appraisal of new testament scholars is an not only ad hominem, but it wasn't actively supported by him.
Lukecash12 7 months ago
Also, I love how atheists always say "Its impossible! Its impossible that God exists etc. etc." But when someone points how that atheists minds are closed because they say that its not even a possibility that God exists they ALWAYS RIGHT AWAY change their opinion to "Well its UNLIKELY!"
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@GermanConquistador08 They use equivocating language in order to defend their actual position, that God is impossible.
Lukecash12 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Lukecash12 But when called out on it they will IMMEDIATELY change their position to make them seem STILL correct.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
"Thats better..with a REAL question." - Lesson 1 in debate, you're job is to win converts to your argument. You wont do this by being a jackass.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
Wow Dr. Craig is so misled by his own predispositions that he claims all atheists have...
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
Atkins whole machine analogy failed as well. Occasionally anthropomorphic *terminology* is used in referring to machines, but you cannot "train" a computer the way living beings are "trained." Machines are programmed, not "trained" which means to teach a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over time, these are all terms of reference exclusive to sentient (able to perceive or feel) beings.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago 8
Q : How did we get our aesthetic sensibilities ?
Atkins : Evolutiondidit - somehow, but don't ask me for evidence.
Q : How did we get our moral sensibilities ?
Atkins : Evolutiondidit - but don't ask me how or why.
Q : How did scientists come to believe in evolution ?
Atkins : Evolutiondi....err... I mean, by our rational thinking, because we are scientists- much, much, smarter than you. YOUR beliefs are the product of evolutionary forces. OUR beliefs are the result of clear thinking.
Jesrael1986M 7 months ago 2
@Jesrael1986M Evolution is a fact and one of the strongest scientific theories (one of the things in this universe that we know the most certainly), both, and you are putting words into Atkins mouth. There is no clear thinking in your post, just wrong understanding and bias. It's ironic that the only refute against atheism is to call it a religion with religious-type belief, as if that helps religion become true.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
Atkins did somewhat better in this portion of the debate than in his earlier putting forth of his bizarre illogical world view. He failed to present a reasonable unbiased view on the historicity of Jesus though.
ShawDAMAN 7 months ago
Atkins is weak on the aesthetics point. "You can train a machine....etc" Yes, you can train a machine, but that requires a human input at the beginning, i.e. the training. Take away the human input and a machine wouldn't know Mozart to be music, or Dikens to be literature, etc, etc..
PaulP567 8 months ago
There were "real" people who witnessed Caesars death? And 0 witness of Christ? lol FAIL, naturally that is to be laughed at.
DiatonicSoul 8 months ago
This is why Richard Dawkins dont wanna debate scientists or anyone that seems to know what his talking about. For he will look like a fool in minutes. He rather debates old priests in churches. WHAT A JOKE!!!!
katpiering123 8 months ago 59
@katpiering123 Richard Dawkins just doesn't consider Dr. Craig worthy... and I've watched all of his materials and agree. Although I'd love to see Dawkins put him in his place too. Dr. Craig is another Hovind... lost in is beliefs with a misunderstanding of what it is to known something.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@katpiering123 Who arent trained or professionalized in debate mind you.
GermanConquistador08 7 months ago
@katpiering123 I agree 100% with you
wbysniper 6 months ago
@katpiering123 Richard Dawkins is a scientist and William Lane Craig is a philosopher and, although I'm sure the debate could be entertaining, it rarely amounts to a good, meaningful debate when you put a scientist on one side and a philosopher on the other when it comes to the topic of religion.
TheHmmhmm 6 months ago
@TheHmmhmm
No, Dawkins is a coward, and that's why he avoids Dr. Craig like the plague. Not my own opinion, but also a lot of atheists. You state that Richard Dawkins is a scientist, and Dr. Craig is a philosopher? Then why is a biologist making philosophically incorrect assertions regarding the existence of God? I'm sure he wrote a book about it, even. Did Dr. Craig ever write about evolutionary biology? It's only fair, then, that Dawkins should man up and face his chastisement.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator I agree with Craig that Dawkins' "The god delusion" is not a good or important book from a philosophical perspective and, for that very reason, I think a debate between the two would be very redundant. I would however love to see Daniel Dennet take on Craig in debate.
TheHmmhmm 6 months ago
@TheHmmhmm
Me too.
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@katpiering123
Not even old priests in churches. It's usually the uneducated hicks from the American boonies with "Bible learnins" that he picks his fights with. Why? Because, like all atheists, they can't die for a cause, much less risk to be humiliated, and so they pick on people stupider than them and consider it a victory for science. Watch the arrogant wretch talk about how "I will win a debate with you" and still avoid little, ol' Dr. Craig. Even making excuses as how "he's busy".
IoannesBellator 6 months ago
@IoannesBellator He is busy alright, busy running away from William Lane Craig. The saddest thing of it all is that there are actually people listening too and believing Richard Dawkins. Well, there will always be people who believe the fools and liars. Since there were even people who believed what the Pharisees said about Yahushua/Jesus back in the day. And still believe them today obeying the Talmud.
katpiering123 6 months ago
@katpiering123 Sigh... Why would he debate a scientist on theology? He's a scientist himself for god sake. It makes perfect sense for him to debate BISHOPS on THEOLOGICAL ISSUES because of their theistic beliefs.
upliftzippy 6 months ago
@upliftzippy but he uses scientific arguements against someone who is not as exposed to these scientific arguements. Send in a lion to fight a deer. Thats really brave.
LBBSTOMAJCCDP 6 months ago
@upliftzippy: Isnt the premise god does not exist a theological statement?
elipse135 5 months ago
@elipse135 I don't know, probably, but it's a premise that atheists agree with due to lack of scientific evidence.
upliftzippy 5 months ago
"There were real witnesses to ceasers death" As if the early Christians were fake witnesses, who just so happened to completely revolutionize the world. This Atkin's fellow needs to clean up his act, I mean these so called scientists are not even logical, it appears they are more invested in creed then anyone. Craig is intellectually on point and preaching the word of truth with precision and joy. The mediator is also excellent - very good presentation, thanks for the upload.
UniversalBrother108 8 months ago
7:47 This mediator is on point. This Oxford educated idiot has no idea what he's talking about - 12 simple fishermen? The mediator's comment of "people like Paul?" is exactly right. Paul was one of the most respected authorities of the time - not some simple peasant. This Atkins fellow really is a low level Con man of material science - it's no wonder he looks so stressed out and angry with these two heavy weights who are delivering clear and consistent arguments he can't stand up against.
UniversalBrother108 8 months ago
you think that's avery naive view of new testament criticism do you Dr Craig? lolz
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
So, "aesthetic judgements" are not "judgements about aesthetics". Yuh, Dr Craig completely rolls himself again.
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
Dr. Atkins says that he "believes" - is that not a statement of faith? he is saying someting but he has no clue whether things that are called miracles wil be able to proved by science. Can that statement alone be proved by science, it cannot for it is not based on proof.
prn72271 9 months ago
I love how this "scientist" claims The witnesses to the resurrection are liars but the people for Caesar are truth sayers. He is claiming what he wants to be true. You can't be a scientist and nit pick what history or evidence and claim it is science.
TheBbg83 10 months ago
@TheBbg83 There are many more and better historical facts available attesting to the existence of Caesar. And not only that, there is also far far less explaining power required to carry these facts, for they do not require the whole natural order to be suspended. And as a bonus, to what end would a devious plan cater which massivly obscurred the historical records with fake data of some roman emperor that never existed, it's preposterous, that would need a good explanation as well.
TheHardProblem 9 months ago
@TheHardProblem it still requires faith to believe in Caesar though. Thats the point.
prn72271 9 months ago
@prn72271 @prn72271 Do you really think that this is a strong point to make? The same would then be true for the idea that gravity will hold me to the ground till the day that I die. Ack! You've got me now, I guess I might as well start believing in god now because there is no difference (apparently) in supported belief and unsupported belief.
TheHardProblem 9 months ago
@TheHardProblem You have missed your own point, you were talking about "HISTORY". If we are looking at "HISTORY" in many cases it takes faith for we were not there when it happened, we have to just believe that what we are being told is true. Some things (maybe many) are not.
As far as gravity, you have experience that on earth you do not float into space, so based on that knowledge and all of the countless people who have no floated into space you really dont need faith.
Apples & Oranges.
prn72271 9 months ago
@prn72271 lol. if you floated into space that'd be evidence that some other object had a stronger gravitational pull than Earth. The mere fact that the Earth exists as it does is evidence of gravity.
HarrynJessie 9 months ago
@TheHardProblem also it is not true to say that Jesus/Christianity is not supported, it is. You dont believe which is a choice.
And no, I did not get you however you must be consistent.
prn72271 9 months ago
@prn72271 What is, if not history, that which happend last year, yesterday or a (milli)second ago? You say there is support for jesus to be the christ, yet you seem to dismiss the belief in ceasar. How much do you value evidence and reason in deciding what happend in history or what is more likely the truth of the matter in any case? Atkins would reply that many miracles have either been proven false or explained by science, making it more likely that others would follow a similar fate.
TheHardProblem 9 months ago
@prn72271 Let me give you a little philosophical thought experiment. What evidence can you bring about that would refute the claim that the universe came into existence 1 second ago with all the life, thoughts and feelings you have now? Your idea of history of yourself could be a fake in that regard, just memories implanted in your brain.
TheHardProblem 9 months ago
@TheHardProblem
derth4 7 months ago
@TheHardProblem
I think that I lived in the past therefor I did. You suggest that I made all my life up a second ago which makes no sense in anyway shape or form. Also who created these fake memories? Was it you, was it a monkey? You idiotically try to come up with a philisophical question you believe can't be answered but it can by using basic intuition. I don't need some grand philosophical explanation why I know I wasn't just created because that is logically incoherient.
derth4 7 months ago
@TheBbg83
extraordinarily claims require extraordinarily evidence.
The Koran makes extraordinarily claims too, 1.5 Billion people believe them. Yet you don't? Your reason is because you have been indoctrinated into Christianity. I don't believe Christianity or Islam because they make extraordinarily claims, with very little evidence.
You're gods going to send me to hell though, because... I'm consistent?
jimwal2008 9 months ago
Atkins: "I cannot remember who buried my mother"
Craig: "... aha..."
LOL, this is the best segment ever.
cashernandes1 11 months ago
@cashernandes1 ha, what was even funnier in that segment was Buckley's comment wheh Atkins says i "cannot remember who I buried my mother" and Buckley says "maybe there was no need to memorialize that burial!" oooh, low blow! lol
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
"There were real witnesses to Caesar's death... there were... there" 5:20
LOL, I deemed it impossible to drag oneself lower than that. Atkins proclaims that the believers "desperately want to believe in God" but it's HIM who wants desperately to believe that Jesus was just a regular guy and God didn't exist. It's quite clear, lol.
cashernandes1 11 months ago 26
@cashernandes1 What is quite clear is the opposite of what you said, and exactly what Atkins said, believers desperately want to believe in God and become lost in it. Why does every one religious think it's just their God or no God at all? Why do they not realize their own atheistic beliefs in other Gods is the same as atheists who reject their God? They would surely accept Atkins rebuttal against Allah, for instance.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette That is a straw man, You can't dismiss every god for the same reasons, as there are many different types of gods, Thor and Zeus, being gods that we can quickly dismiss because their nature of lightning and thunder has been explained away by science, but the idea of the Christian God cannot be so quickly explained away because His nature exists outside of the universe, and is not limited to simple things in nature such as lightning...
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 It's not a straw man. Your God used to live the sky and we've been to the sky and he's not there. You just modify your God over and over to deny the evidence of his non-existence. Now he's outside of the universe and time itself. If we could "go" there and find he's not there (as we are now doing in science), you move him further away still. I quickly dismiss your God just as I do Thor, it's not a straw man. You have to provide evidence, not just an assertion.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@matthewdoucette Not necessarily, the God Christians are supposing is not a retreating God as He has interacted with human kind and become incarnate in Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Christians attest to Gods continuing interaction within believers. Whats more, theologians, like Augustine proposed that God has existed outside of time 1500 years before science explained lightning or volcanoes. Therefore I do not see your point that God is retreating farther and farther away...
philosophizer149 7 months ago
@philosophizer149 Other Gods have also interacted and helped write books and send messages to us humans via prophets... and believers in those other gods attest to continued interaction... it's all the same. The only difference is your indoctrination into your religion. You are as lost as they are. When you are outside of it, Christianity and Islam and all the others looks the same. People are willing to die for Islam, so strength of conviction is not a measure of truth.
matthewdoucette 7 months ago
@cashernandes1 Totally agree that I think he wishes he believed. He sounds like he's trying to convince himself of his position.
YoussefS 4 months ago
Atkins got humiliated and Craig didn't even mean to do that. Unlike Dawkins, Craig doesn't need to offend anyone to feel better about himself: he's well equipped with knowledge, facts and logic.
cashernandes1 11 months ago
@cashernandes1 notice no eye contact from Atkins as he addresses Craig
TheOlehcim 10 months ago
@TheOlehcim Yeah, exactly.
cashernandes1 10 months ago
@TheOlehcim and what does that say? what deep pithy meaning shall we ascribe to that observation?
glorp896 10 months ago
@glorp896 As you've enlightened yourself to believe in an alternative reality based on unconfirmed evidence to disprove the existence of God-- by and through only theoretical supposition that preys on the emotion and self-purpose. How can you refute proven historical and archeological evidence of the written record of biblical scripture which surpasses all other historical writings from Aristotle, Alexander the Great, Alcibiades, Antisthenes and so on to be over 98% accurate in its validity.
TheOlehcim 10 months ago
@Olehcim look up BELIEVE, science requires NO BELIEF, but rather knowledge and zero faith in ANYTHING... i'm guided by the empirical data & it requires no belief or believing in it to acknowledge it as knowledge - that may be a bit of a stretch away from words so guided by religion but i'm willing to do it for the sake of reason, as reason and faith shall never the twain meet. i don't THINK there is any evidence to disprove/prove the existence of god; god is such a concept - too incoherent...
glorp896 10 months ago
@glorp896 Science requires no belief? You've just proved you dont even know anything about science! Science is entirely based on unproven beliefs, without which it couldnt exist. For example, mathematics requires the belief that there is inherent logic in mathematics, but this cant be proved, the theory of relativity is based on the belief that light travels as aconstant in one direction but this cant be proved, it has to be assumed in order to hold to the theory
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk thats right, look up the definition, and i'm really using the religious definition, there are more generalized definitions. look up belief and believe, you will be surprised at how religious these words are!, unless i need to look up some newer more secular definition beyond my 1980 websters. no where in the scientific method is the word belief used. look that up as well... i'm just making a distinction between reason and faith. "BELIEF IS THE DEATH OF INTELLIGENCE" - R.A. Wilson
glorp896 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk so there you go, in your own post using a more accurate word, assume... you have reason to assume something is true as you test it to be so... or the word hypothesis is a better replacement for belief... i know belief/believe is so common and basic in our language, but for the sake of separating ourselves more distinctly from religion and superstition we should use more techno lingo...FAITH is actually a synonym of BELIEF and of course we atheists think FAITH is pretty evil...
glorp896 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk
believe:
1a: to have a firm religious faith b: to accept something as true, genuine, or real "ideals we believe in" "believes in ghosts"
- so looking up the word believe makes my point better than belief as believe is more spiritual right from the start... and yet the list of synonyms is not as good a list to discredit like BELIEF-FAITH... so anyway, thats my point... just trying to make the english language more scientific as we shake off the shackles of religious wording...
glorp896 10 months ago
@relarerfhjk we already know there is no straight line single direction, a vector is theoretical, a construct of the mind like PLATOS FORMS... everything is curved space... long distance photon line formations are all a relativity and dumbing down of the universe, especially when you try to wrap a photon around a star, the gravity will quickly change the direction of the light, or past a black hole for that matter... lines are illusions, axiomatic and arbitrary as we dumb down 10+ dimensions...
glorp896 10 months ago
@TheOlehcim yes, the bible is invaluable as to SOME of its history - but certainly the gospels are quite a stretch... for one they are logistically unconnected and contradictory, not to mention all those claims of god incarnation and such and miracles... so this can't be called history... its MYTH...
i'm just glad there is so much of a fanatical following of the bible for self interest and power grabs over time than it has kept some very old history alive... that is at least some consolation
glorp896 10 months ago
Atkins: "I note your impartiality in this debate"... yeah, he's is partial to logical arguments of which Atkins was making NONE!
happysappy21 11 months ago
A very important point is that God is never a final explanation, for the simple reason that God Himself is also an object of knowledge, experience and investigation. Once you understood that God created the universe, the questioning is not over, it is just beginning. It is just an upgrade: you jump from the mere cosmological point of view to the metaphysical point of view. God is not an "explanation". He is Reality itself, just taken at its highest and more encompassing dimension.
olavodeca 1 year ago
@olavodeca
Wow, I couldn't say any better myself. Fantastic! :)
BassP86 1 year ago
Phylosophical "proof" for god will only take ths far, but at some pint you have to give actual hard evidence for his existence. So even though Atkins is an awful debater, you can't say Craig won because he didn't give any evidence for god, but the bible and his story of "bible scholars" that take it as fact.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX Lolwut? What happens in philosophy stays in philosophy. You can't make philosophy and then say "well now let's find hard evidence for this." You can't present 'actual hard [scientific] evidence' for one's stance on ethics — heck, just the idea of that is a complete clusterfuck of nonsense! The same happens with the God issue, which is philosophical at its core, more specifically from the field of metaphysics. In NO philosophical issue you get to a point where you need 'hard evidence.'
TheMythus 1 year ago
@TheMythus "What happens in philosophy stays in philosophy"
You're right. If so you would agree that god, for instance, is useless to explain the natural world and that if it doesn't require evidence is not posible to make a good case for it.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
@DaGavinX It depends on what you mean by the verb "explain." In regards to the natural world, God explains it from a purely existential perspective (what is its purpose? why is there something rather than nothing? — again, you have to see this through the drama of human existence), rather than a scientific/mechanical one (how does it work? what are the processes underlying its functioning? why does it behave in such-and-such way?)
TheMythus 1 year ago
@TheMythus I guess I see it an too scientifical way. So I don't care if, for example, evolution makes people feel good and purposeful. So if there's a way to explain something in a naturalistic way, I think we shouldn't resot to theology.
DaGavinX 1 year ago
2:16.......is it past his bed time or what?? lol
ROIDZ100 1 year ago
@ROIDZ100 Do you know who he is? He could "smash you in the face and you'll stay plastered."
dedbusted 10 months ago
the host looks like a huge stoner
pimper347 1 year ago
@pimper347 Apparently you don't know the host. He's passed away now, but was a highly respected intellectual and conservative. His name is William F. Buckley Jr. and he was a Catholic and did smoke pot and argued for its legalization.
911dispatcher 1 year ago
I have been watching many debates recently regarding this issue and I have to say watching Atkins here must be extremely painful for any athiest who has to be represented by this idiot who seems to be eloquent in idiocy. Unbelievable that someone of such education could have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts of logic. Listening further I think is an insult to the human intelligence. I would much rather listen to semi-coherent arguements of Hitchens dawkins or even shermer
efeey 1 year ago
@efeey I agree. Atkins is an incoherent rambler.
supersmash43 1 year ago
This guy is so lost! LOL... he is arguing for and against and around himself! Ridiculous.
jhob83 1 year ago
Atkins: "I cannot remember who buried my mother,"
Buckley: "Maybe there was no reason to memorialize that burial."
LOL. Hyper-intellecualist's way of saying, "yo' momma."
After raising an athiestic bastard like yourself, maybe her burial is better left forgotten.
RomansGalatians 1 year ago
did any one notice at around 8:00 the mediator says "let me pick on you" (directed at Craig. Atkins says (you can hear it in the background) "it's about time".
At 4:40 Atkins INTERRUPTS Craig in the middle of one of his answers. Atkins decided to interrupt one of Craig's answers and for the next 3-4 minutes got "picked on" because his arguments were horrible. Had he never opened his mouth he never would have allowed all of us to see how misguided and foolish he really is.
octobrick81 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a
I also enjoy the fact that you started keeping score after the game was over.
The dude is a fish out of water. Something has happened to Atkins in his life that makes him believe that there is no God. My prayers are for this man. I hope he realizes his mistakes and repents.
octobrick81 1 year ago
@octobrick81 Your prayers are for him? How arrogant. There is no God. Lane did nothing to prove the existence of God, but for what reason does anyone conclude that he wins this? There is no proof of God. There is no NEED for God The main reason why people believe in God is because they fear the unknown. I can't BELIEVE that people like you BELIEVE in something which their has NEVER been any sign of EXISTING. Your argument is so pointless and invalid. God does not exist, and faith doesn't cut it.
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a
you seemed really angry that I said I would pray fo Atkins. You say there is no proof of God, and that we don't need God. Do you also believe that everyone should have their own beliefs, or do you belief everyone should believe in atheism? Because if you believe that we all should have our beliefs then you shouldn't care if I want to pray for this clearly misguided man.
It is obvious that our world was created. Things do not just pop into being, just like we did not
octobrick81 1 year ago
@octobrick81 No, but it's when nutjobs like Sarah Palin are in the running for president of the USA... and, the millions of other religous nutjobs who all believe they're right. It's then, when I feel the need to defend myself from religion.
Feel FREE to believe in what you want to believe in and what makes you feel comfortable, but DO NOT bother me with it-- keep it well away.
Oh, "Things do not just pop into being, just like we did not ", scientist are you?
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@octobrick81 so it was yahweh that just always existed and abracadabra'd everything into existance?.. yeah? an ancient tribal bloodthirsty man made god.. sorry i'll stick to science.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 notice how WLC is trying to interrupt and basically acting like a jack ass to his opponent showing no respect whatsoever while Atkins is showing him the outmost most respect. Whenever Atkin makes a valid point, Craig just shifts the topic which basically 'disproves' everything his opponent has side. Then Craig goes on a short nonsensical but complicated philosophical rambling.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 you are the stupidest and most dishonest piece of shit on the planet if you actually see that in this video.
anewdayproductions 1 year ago
@anewdayproductions and that proves what?
supersmash43 1 year ago
@supersmash43 that's the only thing that dishonest hack is good at. the Master Bullshitter :))
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI well it is still a skill. He makes a living off it in fact. Probably a pretty good one too just like Ravi Zacharias but unlike that that man, this guy doesn't seem as friendly.
supersmash43 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a
I also enjoy the fact that you started keeping score after the game was over.
octobrick81 1 year ago
5.50 hahahaha Well played Atkins!! Atheist 1 Nutjob 0
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a
I am sorry to tell you this, but by the argument of Atkins everything comes back to nothing. This means that there can't be a score of 1-0 unless somewhere Atkin's is 0-1. Meaning that Atkins is equal to the "nutjobs". Also, this whole hour has been clear evidence how ill-equipped Atkins is in this argument.
octobrick81 1 year ago
I like weird and dissonant chords... If the robot finds them unpleasant does that mean there is something wrong with me? ;-)
DeceptionOfTheState 1 year ago
people got crucafied alot back then - i think jesus was probably just some eccentric preacher - and it was years upon years after that people actually wrote about it. his legend grew and so did his superpowers.
lukeism2 1 year ago
If somebody makes a claim, the simplest explanation is that their claim is true.
JustinHill47 1 year ago
@JustinHill47
Haha really? Cool.....I am going to win the lottery this week.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis lol. Glad you caught the absurdity.
JustinHill47 1 year ago
@JustinHill47
Oh, were you being sarcastic?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis Yes... and... was that a sarcastic question? It's a little hard to tell in writing.
JustinHill47 1 year ago
What premises? Resurrection? The virgin birth? Your only source of information is just a couple of documents that were written in some obscure part of the middle east. You actually elevate scripture above science!
khashayar44 1 year ago
I must thank Professor Peter Atkins for demolishing the very foundation of superstitious beliefs, i.e. Islam, Christianity and Judaism.
khashayar44 1 year ago
Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions. All Atkins has done the entire debate is guess, assume and blunder through blindly. Fisherman? Yes SOME of them were fisherman which back then was a very respected trade. But they were also tax collectors, doctor and so on.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Doctors? What medicine exactly did they use in the 1st century?
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis I have no idea? Are you implying that there were no forms of medcine or people educated in health? Since year dot tribal people have been using forms of home made medicine which have been quite successful so to assume they didn't have any under the Roman Empire is ridiculous.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Yes I am implying that! Have you not read any history? The average life expectancy in ancient Rome was about 30. They had no idea about real medicine! It wasn't until the 19th century and Germ Theory that we really developed genuine medicine (and life expectancy more than doubled). 17th century europe still used leeches as a treatment!!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis You moron. Medicine can be traced back to Ancient Egypt. To quote wikipedia "Ancient Egypt developed a large, varied and fruitful medical tradition. Herodotus described the Egyptians as "the healthiest of all men, next to the Libyans",[1] due to the dry climate and the notable public health system that they possessed." Luke was a physician. The definition of physician is "also known as doctor of medicine, medical doctor, or simply doctor. Even the most remote peoples have their
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis own forms of medicine. What would a Roman soldier after battle? Sit down and die? In fact the life expectancy in Rome was 48 once a child reached 5, and the Roman Empire was much bigger than Rome.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Lol, "once a child reached 5" - you've basically just changed the definition of average life expectancy. That almost renders the argument pointless.
I'm not saying they didn't have anything called 'medicine'. I'm saying most of it wasn't medicine by todays standards. If you look at some of the 'medicine' they used, we know today that it was completely useless.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis Whatever your definition of "life expectancy" is that doesn't disprove whether they had doctors or medicine back in the Roman Empire so that "argument" right there is the one that's pointless.
Me: Are you implying that there were no forms of medicine?
You: "Yes I am implying that!"
Then you say you're not implying they didn't have medicine? Wanna make your mind up? 2,000 or so years ago they didn't medicine to the standard that we do today? No shit eh? And for a moment I was
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis thinking the Romans had a cure for AIDS.
As for the medicine not working you're just firing out of your backside again.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Well I was using a modern definition of medicine. Few of the herbal solutions used by the Romans would be considered good medicine today. By that standard, I couls say they weren't medicine. Some of their treatments might have worked for simple things yes but they had NO chance of treating any serious diseases. If you caught cancer or smallpox, you just died!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis I'll leave you to do your own homework on Roman medicine. New inventions are created everyday. Using your logic if we found a cure for ALL cancer tomorrow we'd have been somehow backward today even though we're up to date in the field of medicines.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Well I don't really need to do my homework, you can just tell me 1 serious disease that the Romans knew how to treat. I'll then apologise and retract my statements!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis Your statements had nothing to do with pin pointing specific diseases which were cured by the Romans. You edge away from the topic at hand after every post.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
No, you just misunderstood my meaning. What I meant to say was that, by modern standards, the Romans didn't have a clue about medicine. They certainly had things THEY called medicine but the fact that they had no chance of treating anything serious shows how limited they were. Unless you can give me an example saying otherwise.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis The Romans were the first people to build actual roads, but since they didn't have Spaghetti Junctions they were primitive.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
@oodlesofosz
Well they weren't. There were roads in ancient Athens. They certainly built a lot of roads though yeah. That's not what we were discussing though. And yes, their roads would have been primitive by today's standards.
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
@GodTheHypothesis You've completely lost the plot. You can't hold a logical argument by saying that because something doesn't meet todays standards it's somehow backward. Of course it's not as complex as what we have today nobody is disputing that so I don't get why you keep saying it. You may as well say nothing is advanced because there will always be something greater to come next.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
his occam's razor stuff is pathetic! God is not a competing cause among many.. that's not what ANY Christian says! headdesk
leviksu 1 year ago
so he's saying that every believer is desperate?
HeyMrKindred 1 year ago
@HeyMrKindred Yes. He can't disprove Craig and so all he does is talk about what HE believes and what HE thinks.
oodlesofosz 1 year ago
4:55- The VERY Same thing can be said of Darwinian evolutionary scientists!!!! They believe the same thing. ... seriously just watch Atkins, insert his foot in his mouth.
7:30 I love this moderator :) LOL!!!
blarbymcblarbston 1 year ago
@blarbymcblarbston
Have you ever actually met any evolutionary biologists? A scientist is someone who doesn't care about any particular theory, unless it's true.
I know quite a few biologists and not a single one of them would care if evolution was shown to be false tomorrow. It's a very poor comparison!
GodTheHypothesis 1 year ago
If you look for substance over style, Peter Atkins really fares rather well.
Alexdurrant7 1 year ago
7:35 lol
necr0sys 1 year ago
Atkins is not an intellectual, he is a philosopher
toobsucker 1 year ago
His tomb is still there and for generations people go there. Jesus it is said learnt some things from India between age 12 and 30 and applied that in his place after return. So he went to kashmir and died there
param3333 1 year ago