Okay Craig, here is a personal invitation for you to debate with me, If you don't show up however I will be forced to call you a coward, and I will have another chair for God, and if neither of you show up. Well you're just wrong.
Your arguments can be dissected by a fifteen year-old, you're nothing but a showman and have the characteristics of a Career Politician and a Charlatan.
@TheAsymmetrical Craig doesn't go around saying he'll debate ANYBODY about the existence of God (while not caring what they believe). Get it? Attempt to read behind the headlines: watch?v=80qsbsuuZjc. Furthermore, Craig has a policy where he only debates people with PhDs (although he'll make rare exceptions). It wouldn't make sense for Craig to debate a pizza delivery body, would it. Please, try to be fair. Your IQ is that of a 15-year-old's.
Richard Dawkins like many of the "new atheists" trot the same old arguments against theism that has been refuted centuries ago! they bring nothing "new" to the table.The "new atheists" have turned atheism into a religion complete with dogma and kool-aid! it's become an abomination in the face of logic and reason! Dr.Craig and Mr.Dawkins needs 5 minutes alone.
"you wage your war of nerves but you can't crush the kingdom!" PANTERA
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
Atheists can ultimately never win this. It's the nature of philosophical debate itself... just move on... He expects a theological answer? Cough cough... the theologians for close to 2000 years now have been pointing at the philosophers: "They will answer that for us."
Believe or don't, the mistake thinking evidence and 'serious' arguments can decide for you is an old one. I feel fine just saying : "I just don't have faith, if you really want to convince me, just pray for me... ok?"
@drcraigvideos Did it? I thought time was thought to be infinite, therefore the universe didn't start, just constantly changes, expanding and contracting under the laws of physics. Silly me.
@sids500 Indeed. You should also look up the Borde Guth Vilenkin model which shows the universe must have a beginning. So, does the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Mr. Dawkins has stated already that he doesn't debate creationists anymore. While it's unfortunate that the biblethumpers have taken this to mean they've "won", this in fact lends no credit to the preposterous idea of creationism by default. Mr. Dawkins is simply sick of giving credit to creationism to begin with, by remotely entertaining the idea by debating it. Evolution is not debateable, it is scientific fact. So any sort of "debate" just ends up being an emotional debate from the theist.
@drcraigvideos a) Dawkins refuses to debate theists in general, including creationists. b) If Dr. Craig is not a creationist, why does he want to debate an evolutionary biologist?
@Faustaao a) Really? Dawkins debated McGrath and Lennox. And last I saw neither one of them were creationists. Furthermore, you haven't even addressed the video link. I just wish you'd admit that you now know Craig is not a creationist. b) Why not? Dawkins thinks anybody who believes in God is living in a delusion, why not debate that? By Dawkins' own admission, he should debate Craig: watch?v=fFvgiH_MMdk. In Dawkins' book he tackles the existence of God. So why fear a debate on that topic?
@drcraigvideos Dr. Craig called himself somewhere between a progressive creationist and moderate evolutionist or something along those lines. Why can he not just define his position?
@Faustaao Because he's agnostic when it comes to progressive creationism and theistic evolution. He even said so: watch?v=cSc92EDm5gU. Progressive creationism is NOT the same as young-earth creationism, genius. Progressive creationists and theistic evolution both accept a universe that is billions of years old and they don't have a problem with common ancestry. Anyway, you haven't even answered the question: why would it be a problem for Craig and Dawkins to debate the existence of God?
´´Evolution is not debateable, it is scientific fact´´
Excuse me numbnuts....
Evolutionary changes within species is indeed a undebateable scientific fact, but the whole controversy, you smartass, is the hypothesis that BECAUSE OF THOSE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES, all of life can be directed back to one single ancestor....
And for that claim, einstein, there is terrible evidence.
That said, Dawkins will simply get humiliated in a debate with Prof. WLC.
He will get humiliated just like Hitchens got humiliated, just like Harris got humiliated, just like Atkins got humiliated, and just like so many others got humiliated in a debate with WLC.
You know why?
Because they and their arguments SUCK! They all SUCK! They cant produce any reasonable case for Atheism, and try to hide behind the claim that they dont have to produce a case.
Life is fleeting ever so fast. Your time on Earth is so very short. If you believe it is only about yourself so be it, I hold no domain over your life. I cannot tell you what to do, or what to say. If you spend your days defiling his name, or praising it...you should know I'm no better than you. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Please know this, banish ur pride, repent you sins, accept what Jesus did for you...and you will be as pure as freshly fallen snow. Copy and paste this msg Christians
Wouldn't it be cool if Dawkins actually showed up, fully prepared to debate, surprising everyone by walking out onto the stage at the last moment, in order to gain a surprise tactical advantage over Craig? Oh, wait, he would still lose.
Anyone ever notice the cowardice on drcraigvideos part? A skeptic points out how the things Craig says is garbage, then the skeptic mysteriously stops commenting and comments go on moderation.
@MootsCountdown So your saying you have more confidence in yourself or other atheist debating Dr. Craig other than Richard Dawkins? Well why don't you propose them to debate or yourself to debate instead of making endless irrelevant comments on youtube. Face it, you know Dawkins is going to lose!
I disliked it because of the "quote-mining" in this video. Now I'm quite curious as to why other people liked or disliked the video?
Is it because Dawkins seems like a coward for not participating? Maybe because this Craig character seems to have a valid point?
Seriously...Dr.Dawkins gets so many of the same ignorant questions every time he debates...Of course he would not get into a disscussion with this zealot. It would just be repeating the same non-sense over and over again...
@thecosmosisgreat I disliked your comment because you haven't shown any quote-mining whatsoever. You're just doing a typical cowardly drive-by comment. Dawkins has absolutely NO EXCUSE (NONE!) for walking away on a debate with Craig. Craig is not a creationist. And Craig has a doctorate in theology (along with a doctorate in philosophy) which makes him more than qualified than a Bishop. Honestly, why kiss Dawkins' butt?
@drcraigvideos the whole video is mined. Just as LikeALeadZeppelin said: he cannot debunk Craig's misinformed arguments as quickly as Craig can spew them out. As well, being a theologian, Craig does not present evidence for his claims, he simply provides premises. And just like Dr. Dawkins says around 5:50 in the film.
@thecosmosisgreat Uh, yeah, Craig never gives evidence for his premises like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the BVG Theorem. Nothing gets passed you.
@thecosmosisgreat Craig ALWAYS gives evidence for his claims. That is why Dr. Harris changed his position and say, "good evidence", so please do not say he doesn't give evidence, not even sophisticated atheists would ever say such a thing consciously.
@thesangster You have that perfectly backwards. Craig never offers anything but fallacy in his premises, he certainly doesn't offer evidence that they're accurate.
@MootsCountdown Its funny you say that because those atheist champions are never able to exploit them during their debates with him, only on YouTube comment boxes, you'll read all kind of stuff against him. Maybe you should help these guys out and prep them before they go out there and make a fool of themselves since you all(atheists), in these forums, tend to know more than Atkins, Hitchens, Wolpert, and Harris. No one in the audience has nothing to say either, only here. That's funny.
@MoonriseKingdom "Hitchens ripped him a new one." LOL! Good one. How did Hitch "rip him a new one" when he: 1. Failed to listen to the Kalam argument (asked if there was pre-existent material) 2. Objected to the teleo argument with atheistic assumptions 3. Repeatedly confused ontology with epistemology 4. Offered no new explanatory scope for the NT 5. Filibustered, then switched from weak to strong atheism 6. Ranted about N Korea and M Teresa 7. Gave up his closing speech? Yea, ripped, lol.
@MootsCountdown I stated that even atheists say that he does bring evidence, so you're not only against me, but against your fellow atheists as well. It's better to say, that he doesn't offer and convincing argument or evidence. I can bring evidence to a court room and it may not be convincing to win the case, but it is still evidence. So I am not backwards whatsoever unless your buddies, Hitchens, Harris, Wolpert, and Atkins are backwards also, since they say that also. I'm sorry not Wolpert.
@MoonriseKingdom Well I'm assumed that you would be in agreement with the champions of your position. So now I know that your'e divided in this instance, then I don't know how else I can convince you. If definitions are relative, then you can define it how ever you please. But I will stand by the universal definition of what evidence is, and based upon that alone, Craig has ALWAYS provided evidence for his argument and claims, EVERY TIME. This is my unbiased position.
@thesangster There's no division, everyone holding my position can pretty clearly see that Craig employs nothing but fallacy. These have been exposed in debate, particularly with Hitchens.
'Craig has ALWAYS provided evidence for his argument and claims, EVERY TIME'
@MoonriseKingdom "everyone holding my position can pretty clearly see that Craig employs nothing but fallacy." Oh yeah, name the fallacy. We have Ad Hominem, Circular Reasoning, Post Hoc, Red Herring, etc. Which one is it? So far none of his debaters has ever exploited that. Zindler was the only 1 that attempted that, and he got the definition of Ad Hominem wrong. So all you're doing is making claims without EVIDENCE, that is interesting. lol.
For instance, the KCA can only conclude in one of two fallacies. If physics stands, then it means the universe has existed indefinitely making the KCA confirmation bias.
If physics doesn't stand, then trying to apply causality is taxi-cabbing.
@TheTShirtOfTheDead I don't understand your point on your statement, "If physics stands, then it means the universe has existed indefinitely making the KCA confirmation bias." It seems to me that theory would be supported, not be bias, meaning if physic stands. Maybe I need to understand what you mean by "physic stands". Thanks.
@thecosmosisgreat rofl William Lane Craig quote mining?! May it never be said!
Spanked Hitchens? This is what amused me in this video. Watch the debate, seriously. Hitchens refuses to commit to a strong atheist position during the debate and for this reason Craig is said to have won despite Hitchens crushing him in every other way. It is laughable.
@JediVerse It's just beyond me how people think Hitchens "crushed" Craig. Hitchens did terrible. He didn't even give a closing statement. Even Common Sense Atheism said, "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." I know Hitchens means the world to you, but be fair.
@drcraigvideos lol "Fair" would be being able to post comments freely on here without them pending approval. For all the talk of calling Dawkins cowardly it is you who are truly the coward.
@JediVerse So, you think it would be brave to open comments so any atheist can post any off-topic and immature material? That doesn't make much sense. If you would have a brain in your head maybe you would realize this. I know that may be hard for you to figure out, but try, okay? Try! You can do it!
I've seen people whining on Dawkins website, about a New Statesman article which mentioned that even atheists admitted that Hitchens lost his debate with Craig. The hot-heads on there screaming about how Hitchens "destroyed" Craig and how the NS "cannot be trusted" or was "biased" was simply pathetic.
Some atheists simply get their heads so far up their hero's behind that they can't see the debate.
The answer to why Dawkins will not debate Craig alone: he cannot debunk Craig's misinformed arguments as quickly as Craig can spew them out. As well, being a theologian, Craig does not present evidence for his claims, he simply provides premises.
This is why creationists can appear to win debates; they simply dismiss scientifically rigorous evidence while presupposing that a sky-fairy created everything all for the sake of a vacuous morality play.
@LikeALeadZeppelin *SIGH* Craig is not a creationist: watch?v=_IQoLg7w-_4. Why deny the truth that Dawkins is too scared to debate Craig? Instead of blindly following Dawkins while glossing over evidence Craig provides, why not just see the truth for what it is?
@drcraigvideos I thought Dr. Craig was a creationist, just not a young earth creationist. Is that not correct? I watched the video you posted the link to and he was just saying that he believed the universe was 13.7 billion years old. He still believes it was created though right?
@DrKnowsMore If you're defining creationism as someone who merely believes that God created the universe, then you can call him a "creationist" if you want (that's a strange definition though, because that would make theistic evolutionists creationists!). But traditionally creationism has been defined as someone who thinks the universe is 6-10,000-years old. Whereas Craig believe the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. Anyway, I hope you're done stalking me now.
"Why won't I debate Dr. Craig?" Dawkins explains a news conference.... "Uuuh, because he would kick my tiny, flat arse right out of the auditorium! THAT's why!!" lol
Richard Dawkins is willing to debate people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, but when it comes to debating the person who humiliated his buddies Hitchens, Harris and Atkins, he acts like a loudmouth schoolboy who willing to scream and talk, but to scared to fight....
Dawkins has the most pathetic excuses ever created. He's actually accepting that he will always fail to delegitimize the Christian theist.
So, Lennox destroyed Dawkins' confidence, Hitchens has 'evolved' too much, Harris was always the pet of the team... wow! new atheism fell and I'm still in my 20's, theese are excellent days to be a Christian :D
I think people should stop debating... the concept of God is just not a very good topic. If one can debate rationally on this topic in the past, there won't be any debate today... no extraordinary evidence has been presented in the past few millenniums. People believe so much about God are generally behaving like Harold Camping, they CANNOT be argued with! So stop wasting time, protect our children with good education, and let those people believe whatever they want.
God exists in the minds of people who want/wish/need to believe in ever lasting life. It really is opium for the masses.
Personally, I do not believe in a personal God. There just isnt any convincing argument or evidence. I cannot suspend critical thinking and analysis just so that I can become a 'believer'. Even if I could, I would be left unconvinced and deeply unhappy that I was deluding myself.
Maybe something did 'start it all'. But I very much doubt it cares I masterbate at night.
"Oh come on....Craig is a theologian with a degree in what? RELIGION"
Are you blind? Should I have made the words "PhD PHILOSOPHY" any bigger?
"no scientific degree"
If you're implying that science is all that's needed to discover truth then, guess what, you've made a PHILOSOPHICAL statement - and a self-refuting one at that!
Seriously, some of these youtube atheists are worryingly unevolved!
@bcbk93 Craig has a degree in analytical philosophy, genius. He specializes in cosmology and is a philosopher of science. Please try to be more reasonable.
If he's such a bullshitter, why can't you make convincing arguments rather than calling Dr. Craig names? Is it because you're angry that he's kicking atheist ass, and your team is losing? If he's so great, why is Dawkins avoiding Craig? Dawkins is afraid, and you can't deal with it. Go back to reading the "God Delusion" if it makes you feel better about being wrong.
I can hear the choir of the angry, butthurt atheists. They can't seem to deal with how wrong they are, so they'll claim victory, even if reality speaks so contrarily.
@tjobv Atheists are "proud and ignorant people?" What? If there was any real evidence of a god or any particular religion, any honest atheist would convert in a heartbeat. Thoughtful atheists care about if what they think is true or not based on evidence. Most atheists are trying to discover what is true while theists are only concerned with proving their own beliefs. That is arrogant! The more a thoughtful person talks, the further theists shove their fingers in their ears.
@tjobv Atheism is not a religion, dogma or a belief. Atheism is a response to the massive claims that religions/theists make about their god(s). I am not arrogant enough to say I can prove their is no god. It seems that god is man made however. I am an atheist because people who say they KNOW god want some authority over everyone else w/o evidence. I don't need to produce evidence as to why there is no spiderman, the people who claim spiderman is real need to produce it for others to see.
Well it depends on what you mean here with ''authority over everyone else'', if a certain group of people has a different worldview, then, by democratic means, they will try to push that worldview in society.
When you vote for a Liberal party, and i for a Conservative party, then we try to put our values on to each other. That's simply Democracy.
Or were you thinking of taking voting right away for some group of people..............??????
Oh, and by the way, one only needs to look at the average behaviour of Internet Atheist:
Mocking, scoffing, bullying, laughing, irritating, challenging, cursing etc.
The majority of Atheists are proud, arrogant, and thus ignorant indeed........
Atheism is a internet cult for people who want to feel themselves smart and intellectual, in this, you need a group of people whom you can call dumb and non-intellectual........
@tjobv I don't look down at people, I am not that insecure! I don't think they should have authority over others based on nothing but fiction. Atheists may mock and scoff, but they don't burn "witches", stone children/women/homosexuals, or use atheism to justify child abuse and mass murder. Stalin was an atheist, but that is not why he did what he did. He was a psychopath. Religious atrocities happen in the name of theism with the "blessing" of their god. Big difference.
Stalin indeed didn't kill people in name of Atheism, he did it BECAUSE of Atheism.
In Atheism, there is no good or evil, no morality, only social conduct. In an Atheist worldview, the Holocasut was not evil, it was relative, it do was however against social conduct.
So you talk about burning witches, stoning women/children etc. Tell me now, what is wrong with this accdording to you?
I must enjoy the fact that Dawkins, even though he is highly intelligent - has proven repeatedly that he is contradtictory - and by his sheer unwillingness to debate Craig - means that Dawkins can't do the one thing he can't admit to. He must save face - he can never admit he is wrong or may be wrong. I've never seen it. Craig doesn't take "offense" and rely on pure emotion, rather, he seeks to offer rational point-by-point arguments as to why he feels his position is better. Boo to Dawkins.
@OpenAirAtheist You have to be kidding me after establishing the cause must be immaterial timeless etc. he then launches into what possible entities could meet these requirements either abstract objects or a mind and of course abstract objects have no causal powers, and thus a mind is the only possible entity that could meet the requirements that are proven by the argument there is no argument from ignorance you're simply ignorant of the argument
@hac330136 Telling me something is immaterial doesn't tell me what something is and the same goes for timeless etc. Making such statements isnt an answer to anything. If you ask what was in my hand I could go on all day about what it isn't and never answer your question.
@OpenAirAtheist "Telling me something is immaterial doesn't tell me what something is and the same goes for timeless etc." *SIGH* The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, universal, aboslute, and timeless. They never change and it will always be the way it is. Talk about infantile! You couldn't pass a grade school class in logic.
@OpenAirAtheist Those attributes are incredibly informative into the nature of a thing, to know something is timeless reveals a great deal about the nature and state of affairs in which a thing exists. Only a being who isn't material or bound by time could possibly pre exist the physical universe. So to say that the cause of the universe is a mind that is maximally excellent, which of course is to say that that thing exemplifies omnipotence omniscience and goodness, is very informative.
As an atheist I think Dawkins has made a big mistake refusing to debate Craig. He's said in the past that Craig's credentials are poor and he doesn't have the time to honor Craig with a debate and now Dr.Craig's made a great name for himself and people are demanding they debate. I hope Dawkins can swallow his pride, take the possible attacks he'll take for the things he's said in the past, and just debate with him already. Harris and Hitchens had no dilemma when considering a debate with him!
We often times disagree what it means to qualify as "Christian". Allow me but onew small chance to show disimilarities. cmdmt 5 Honor thy mother & father. Evryone whther culture, gender, even age will intepret "honor" differently & even change with life experiences. Are we so much different as a worshipper when we articulate differently as long as the actualization doesn't butt up against the doctrine itself? We all intepret things slightly different..."love/forgiveness" will always be key.
@hexusziggurat ...you atheist do seem to have a problem discerning between cause and effect. This is what is true within the Pentecostal faith too. Ask any pastors and ask to see their credo. If that is added to what I have stated - "it will be there" in the credo along with all their doctrines. What I have stated, if you just check, will be a part of the doctrinal credo of "every" Christian Church. There will be other things - things that separate them from others - but salvation is the same.
@hexusziggurat Now like I said - you may have been told something else - but it is wrong. If what they said is true of their faith - then it WILL BE in the credo. If it is not in there, then those who are not telling you this are wrong. My point is - salvation is the same for all, and to be a Christian you must be saved - not just go to church, sign up and pay tithes - you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior. You must believe as in John 3:16-17.
@4GodSoLoves Correction: I meant to say "...then those who ARE telling you this are wrong." And their headquarters should be notified so that 'error' is not passed on.
@hexusziggurat I'm sorry for my last two posts - they were meant for Mortalhuman. But here you are making the same mistake that he is making. You are confusing doctrinal differences with salvation. If we all had "all" the same doctrines, there would be only one denomination. We KNOW there are differences, of course. But SALVATION comes by only one way. All Christian Faiths agree and you will find it as "part" of every credo or they are not Christian. The differences do not center on salvation.
@4GodSoLoves Actually, you are referring to scriptural interpretation. And, of course, you are right. But there is no room for interpretation error when it comes to salvation. The scriptures are plain and clear - it has not been left up to interpretation. This is what we are talking about here - how one is "saved" - it is the same in all Christian faiths - 'By the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ'. Without this salvation one cannot truly claim be Christian, is what I've been saying.
@4GodSoLoves "If we all had "all" the same doctrines, there would be only one denomination." even if we had it ...my point is that we will interpret it differently. Its not the differences in scriptural writings from book to book that i'm getting at..you'd never avoid that. OK for the purpose of what i am getting at, please explain to me what "All Christian Faiths agree" on?
@hexusziggurat I just did - please go back to my other posts and read what I have been regurgitating for about three days now. But this is what I've said - To be a Christian, you must agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that salvation comes by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and that He is the only way to salvation.
@4GodSoLoves ok sounds great. no disputes. A rather fundamental basic credo to follow but i agree thats the core of what it means to qualify as "Christian". Its usually all the other "supporting stuff" thats in dispute when we either translate or interpret. peace upon you brother.
@hexusziggurat Like Leonard Ravenhill shouted at the top of his lungs: "There is only one way to Heaven, there are many ways to Hell." Don't all Christians believe that?
Craig reminds me of a slimy used car salesman. He's simply another evangelist in philosopher's clothing. He's not in the same realm as Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, Sartre or any other prominent philosopher of the last 150 years.
His Kalam Cosmological Argument ( a re-hatched and stale one borrowed from Islam) has been used throughout history. Many philosophers have refuted that weak position. Only theists w/ imaginary friends & an inferior education are impressed w/ such a buffoon. ;-D
@aaronk1994 : I know he has a Phd in Philosophy. He is still not on the same level as Russell, Nietzsche, etc. The reason I made that point is because in his Kalam Cosmological Argument he later takes a leap when he concludes "god" is the First Cause . . . 1) why does it have to be a god? 2) Why does he take a leap and claim that said god is the god of the bible?
Without using the bible (since doing so would be circular reasoning) why is the god of the bible the one and "true" god?
@Sexxistentialist There is no leap. I wish more people would give an effort to actually try understanding the argument: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c. If it satisfies you that the world popped into existence out of nothing, well, you talk about a leap of faith. Or given the scientific fact that the universe actually had a cause, and you actually think the universe is eternal, well, go nutts then. I'd rather give in to reason and science.
@drcraigvideos: You rather give into reason and SCIENCE?<--LMAO... Is Science the reason why most physicists and people with a Phd's across various disciplines in science are atheists? That is a statistical fact . . . not my opinion!
I fully understand the KCA position. But, who you you think you are fooling when you insinuate Craig is not an evangelical . . . who after concluding the First Cause is "god" - that said god is NOT the god of the bible? That is an extension to his argument.
@Sexxistentialist *SIGH* It looks like you've been reading up on Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Those scientists with PhDs who are atheists aren't atheists due to science, genius. The next time you do a study on statistics get the whole story.
You haven't even begin to touch on the link I gave on the KCA. The KCA doesn't mention God in its premise and conclusions, because it's only upon METAPHYSICAL grounds you can deduce that God exists. Try to be fair and learn something, ok?
@drcraigvideos Can you please tell me where Dr. Craig talks about the B-theory of time. I read somewhere that the B-theory of time destroy the Kalam. Have you ever heard this? Thanks!
@AegeanKing He discusses B-Theory of time with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Dr. Craig says that A-theory of time is only compatible with KCA. B-Theory cannot be compatible. Some philosophers disagree however.
@drcraigvideos Thanks for the response. One last question if you dont mind. Is it true that most philsophers and scientists reject the A-theory of time? If so, is A-theory only popular among believers? Thanks again!
@aaronk1994 : The overall point I make is that Craig's god is the "god of the gaps." He is no different than the typical theist who postulates the existence of a god WITHOUT concrete evidence that can be examined and scrutinized SCIENTIFICALLY. His proof is angled from the ontological perspective in disguise (to rephrase Kant). He uses philosophy to try to give credibility to his evangelical stance.
REMINDER: He who asserts the positive has the ONUS of PROOF. Where's the EVIDENCE?
@hempartist420 I struggle with the same problem. Usually most christians begin the personal abuse very early. And you are right about the ignorance of christians to the bible. I began a conversation with three street preachers the other night and they did not even have a bible with them! One had an app on his Iphone and they were visibly surprised to read that Jesus had used the appropriate whipping of slaves as a parable as to how we would be punished.
@TheMortalhuman I meant to say "...but at least we agree on what Biblical Christianity IS". For example - we all believe that to be saved we must be born again and on what that "means" - however, we may disagree on how that may manifest itself in the life and worship of a believer.
@4GodSoLoves It is a fair observation because you don't consider the possibility that it may be you who are in error and that other christians may be the true christians. You only regard your own interpretations of scripture as the correct interpretations. You deny that people who read the bible and identify problems with it regarding historical and scientific accuracy, morality and consistency have understanding of what is written. It is a very egocentric approach you have taken.
@TheMortalhuman Your last post is absurd. I have done no such thing. And of course my "Christianity" is "true". First of all, where have I even declared "MY" Christianity so you could judge it so? Secondly, Christianity is Christianity - it is right because black is black, white is white and Christianity is Christianity. As far as "my" interpretation is concerned - to be a Christian, there are certain things about scripture that must be believed that are not up to interpretation.
@4GodSoLoves And not all christians believe that they need to be saved, or born again. Some just believe in God and that Jesus was a good man, and think no more than that. Others insist that unless you receive the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues you are not a true christian. The problem is that the NT gives vague and inconsistent instructions as to how to receive eternal life. Is it belief,repentance, an invitation to Jesus, the gift of tongues, good works, reading his word, combinations?
@TheMortalhuman WRONG - The persons you just mentioned are NOT Christians. About those who claim gift of tongues, you're wrong again - they do not claim those who do not speak in tongues is not a true Christian. That is what I was talking about in my other post - we all believe we must be born again and understand what it means - but how it is manifest in a person is debated. No one says the other is not a Christian. Also, don't do as so many atheists do and confuse conduct with salvation.
@4GodSoLoves I'm sorry, but as a young man I was a member of "Students for Christ" and they specifically believed and taught that if you do not receive the gift of tongues you are not saved. they backed their beliefs up with scripture. If you believe otherwise they would say that you are not a true christian. They might even use capital letters like you have.
The people I mentioned are not christians according to you. According to them they are christians. Who is right, and why?
@TheMortalhuman Students for Christ do not declare that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved. They believe if you don't speak in tongues that you do not have the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. And those people are Christians - just so you know - I hereby declare it. They are right to believe that those who speak in tongues and those who don't are both saved as long as they are Christians, because that is what they believe. Who is right about the indwelling? Honestly, I'm not sure.
@4GodSoLoves I mean I don't know if the "indwelling" should be manifested the same way in all of us. I don't think so - I don't believe so. I believe that indwelling occurs to all believers. But that is a discussion for believers to have among themselves.
@4GodSoLoves You could not be more wrong. SFC were adamant to the point of fanatacism regarding the gift of tongues, and they specifically taught that if you did not receive the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues then you are not saved. It was almost the first thing I was asked when I joined, and they organised regular services with altar calls to facilitate the act. It may dawn on you one day that not all christian believers agree with you.
@TheMortalhuman Just Google "Students For Christ Doctrinal Statement". Then you can stop insisting on things that aren't true. No, they don't all agree with me on all things - I never said they did. We were talking about what is required to become a believer in Christ. You were there - so you say, okay, I can't help what you experienced in your group. But Students For Christ is a world wide organization and their doctrine is the same everywhere.
@TheMortalhuman There are 11 points in the Students for Christ Doctrinal Statement. If you read them, you will see that no such doctrine as you have stated exists.
@4GodSoLoves And yet that is what they believed, and taught, and promoted. I was there. I was a member, and that is what they believed wholeheartedly. They were quite antagonistic toward your christianity. One preacher memorably characterised believers in other churches as "lemon suckers". It is quite funny that you would point to a doctrinal statement as proof of what people believe. I never said it was public doctrine, I said that it was what they believed.
@TheMortalhuman "They were quite antagonistic toward your christianity. One preacher memorably characterised believers in other churches as "lemon suckers". " Ha - lemon suckers - that's funny. But it's funny that you say, "...your christianity...". Just what do you think is "MY" Christianity?
@4GodSoLoves I couldn't care less what your christianity is. My argument has been that whatever your beliefs are, you consider them the true christian beliefs, and when I mention rival interpretations you had no hesitation in saying "WRONG - The persons you just mentioned are NOT Christians." It is not the specific claims that you make regarding what you consider to be a true christian that interests me, it is your conviction that only your particular interpretation could possibly be correct.
@TheMortalhuman I'll tell you exactly what "MY" Christianity is. Just Google "Students For Christ Doctrinal Statement" and read what "MY" doctrinal statement is.
@4GodSoLoves sorry, christadelphian, although there may be a christadenplian offshoot of christianity! The difference of course between species and religion in my analogy is that horses don't accuse cows of not being true mammals, because they moo instead of whinney
@TheMortalhuman con't...it's like saying I'm a God believing, God worshiping Atheist. You do understand - right? - that you must believe/accept certain things in order to be able to 'truthfully' say your this or that - in this case, a Christian. One has to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, and that He died, was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, or, by definition, you're not a Christian. con't...
@4GodSoLoves The atheist analogy fails because it is not a belief system, but I know what you are trying to say. You believe that your definition of christianity is correct, and that to think otherwise means that you are not christian. What I am pointing out to you is that other people define christianity differently, and that, like you, they can produce some scripture or logic to justify their belief. They think your definition is wrong, as you do theirs.
@TheMortalhuman "...other people define christianity differently..." This is at the heart of your confusion. People do not define "Christianity" differently. Christianity has A meaning. There are varying Denominations WITHIN Christianity because there are different opinions, interpretations, etc. "within" the Faith. But to be a Christian you have to believe and accept those things that define you as Christian. I don't know why you insist on arguing the point. You might want to believe...cont
@4GodSoLoves You are making very hard work of this 4GSL. It may help if I explain that Christianity has not been objectively defined. There have been attempts to define it and redefine it, such as the nicene creed, but even then there was such dissention that the various sects of christianity, all convinced as you are that their definition alone was correct, turned their backs on the council. The reformation again attempted to redefine it, division was the result.
@TheMortalhuman That is ridiculous. You're talking about doctrines. That is not the same thing as defining the word Christianity, or what is required to be one. You're not Christian so it doesn't matter anyway what you think or what you figure others believe. You're arguing about doctrinal differences within the Christian community and don't realize that that's what you're doing. So there's no reason to just regenerate things with you. So believe what you will. Go in peace - God bless.
@4GodSoLoves I'll remind you that it is you that claimed that doctrines conclusively defined what people believe, on your statements regarding the specific beliefs of people I knew in SFC. I hope that I have explained to you that people don't refer to doctrine when defining their personal beliefs, and as far as beliefs go, everything is subjective and coloured by one''s own personal experience and desires, So there are as many christianities as there are christians.
@TheMortalhuman Again - salvation comes by grace through faith - one must be born again - Jesus is the way. When one places their faith and trust in Him and accepts His sacrifice as payment for their sins - is willing to have Him (the Holy Spirit) change them from within into a new creature - they are born again and saved by God's grace through their faith in Jesus the Christ, their Messiah and Lord. That is a Christian by definition, and that is the ONLY way - thus says the Lord.
@4GodSoLoves That's quite a lot of things there. As your moniker suggest you already know, John 3:16 states that belief alone in Jesus is what is required. You want to stipulate exactly what things we are to believe about Jesus. Other believers will be happy to just say they believe in Jesus, without accepting your extra sub-beliefs. I don't mind which you believe. I'm not trying to restrict what the meaning of "christian" is.
@TheMortalhuman "Other believers will be happy to just say they believe in Jesus, without accepting your extra sub-beliefs." No, sir, I have added nothing to John 3:16. Let one Christian come forth and deny that what I have said is not God's plan of salvation.
@4GodSoLoves For God so loved the world that whoever believes in him..... and places their faith and trust in Him and accepts His sacrifice as payment for their sins - is willing to have Him (the Holy Spirit) change them from within into a new creature - they are born again and saved by God's grace through their faith in Jesus the Christ, their Messiah and Lord., or repents of his sins - thereby acknowledging his need of the Savior for forgiveness, believes in his heart that Christ ... .cont
@4GodSoLoves .... is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of those who will accept Him, that he was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven and will one day return to establish His Kingdom on Earth. Then he receives his forgiveness by grace of God through his demonstrated faith in Jesus the Christ, his Lord and Savior.....then they shall not die but have everlasting life!
@4GodSoLoves You may feel that because I am not a christian it does not matter what I think. That is not a very good argument. I can watch a soccer match and see when a player is offside without playing the game. I can probably see it better than the players on the field. I have no emotional investment my own religious belief so I am better able to appreciate that all people's religious beliefs are equal, and all of them are the true belief, according to them.
@TheMortalhuman How this is done: The person repents of his sins - thereby acknowledging his need of the Savior for forgiveness, believes in his heart that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of those who will accept Him, that he was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven and will one day return to establish His Kingdom on Earth. Then he receives his forgiveness by grace of God through his demonstrated faith in Jesus the Christ, his Lord and Savior.
@TheMortalhuman cont'd...what your saying is true - but a Christian is a Christian based on those things I listed before. You said a person can believe that Jesus is not the Savior - He is just a good man and nothing else. Okay, you can believe that and "call" yourself a Christian if you want - but your not. I can get married and claim I'm a bachelor - but I'm not. You can "claim" anything even deny "facts" but that doesn't make you right - in fact - it makes you wrong. Maybe you...cont
@4GodSoLoves You are nearly there now. You seem to be accepting that other people can define christianity differently to you, and that even though their definition is not what you would call christian, they still consider themselves christian. The doctrinal definitions are attempts to objectively define christianity, but people define their beliefs subjectively, not according to objective standards and doctrines. This is why there is so much variation in belief.
@4GodSoLoves I could have this very same discussion with some of my old SFC friends they would have no hesitation in saying about your beliefs "Okay, you can believe that and "call" yourself a Christian if you want - but your not" Christianity is not objectively defined. There are many things recorded in the bible that are required for eternal life. Different believers make subjective choices about those requirements. they may differ from your choices, but who can say what is right?
@TheMortalhuman Ultimately, a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as their person Savior and puts their trust in Him for forgiveness of sin. If what you are saying (and I can see, as an atheist, why you would want to do this) is true, nobody can be sure of salvation. In light of scripture, that is ridiculous. It is quite true that it is spelled out perfectly how one is saved in scripture. There is no doubt. I have told you how. Let a believer come forth and deny it - not an atheist.
@4GodSoLoves Please understand that my motivation is not to upset your conviction that you have salvation. My motivation is to have you accept that those people who call themselves christian who you reject as being christian, also have a conviction that they have salvation and that you should accept that and not claim otherwise. The world is already full of dangerous religious intolerance and we should all minimise religious division where possible.
@TheMortalhuman Listen, I'll tolerate anybodies religious convictions. But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about what defines one as a Christian. That is all. And I have just stated the only way one can be a Christian. You can be whatever you want, but you cannot be a Christian, by definition, without the things I have stated here. This isn't an opinion. This is a universal fact by anyone or organization that correctly calls themselves Christian. Now I must get some sleep.
@4GodSoLoves You've already demonstrated a number of times that you are willing to ignore arguments of people solely on their religion or lack of it.
"You're not Christian so it doesn't matter anyway what you think..."
"Let a believer come forth and deny it - not an atheist."
so forgive me if I am not convinced of your tolerance.
You have stated the only way one can be a christian. Other people also state the only way one can be a christian, and they sometimes differ from your definition.
Respond to this video...What I would hope that you would understand, and be able to accept, is that different people define christianity in different ways according to their own beliefs, or interpretations of scripture, and that their definition is as correct to them as your definition is to you. You may disagree with them vehemently, but you can accept with humility that yours is but one of the many ways scripture can be int
7:38 is priceless... Hahaha
eltopus4747 2 months ago
Okay Craig, here is a personal invitation for you to debate with me, If you don't show up however I will be forced to call you a coward, and I will have another chair for God, and if neither of you show up. Well you're just wrong.
Your arguments can be dissected by a fifteen year-old, you're nothing but a showman and have the characteristics of a Career Politician and a Charlatan.
TheAsymmetrical 3 months ago
@TheAsymmetrical Craig doesn't go around saying he'll debate ANYBODY about the existence of God (while not caring what they believe). Get it? Attempt to read behind the headlines: watch?v=80qsbsuuZjc. Furthermore, Craig has a policy where he only debates people with PhDs (although he'll make rare exceptions). It wouldn't make sense for Craig to debate a pizza delivery body, would it. Please, try to be fair. Your IQ is that of a 15-year-old's.
drcraigvideos 3 months ago
i dont believe in god myself but i still really enjoy hearing dr. craigs intellectual responses
samcarr6 3 months ago
Richard Dawkins like many of the "new atheists" trot the same old arguments against theism that has been refuted centuries ago! they bring nothing "new" to the table.The "new atheists" have turned atheism into a religion complete with dogma and kool-aid! it's become an abomination in the face of logic and reason! Dr.Craig and Mr.Dawkins needs 5 minutes alone.
"you wage your war of nerves but you can't crush the kingdom!" PANTERA
natraan 3 months ago
he didn't show up
archangelcats 4 months ago
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
Atheists can ultimately never win this. It's the nature of philosophical debate itself... just move on... He expects a theological answer? Cough cough... the theologians for close to 2000 years now have been pointing at the philosophers: "They will answer that for us."
Believe or don't, the mistake thinking evidence and 'serious' arguments can decide for you is an old one. I feel fine just saying : "I just don't have faith, if you really want to convince me, just pray for me... ok?"
Leafbleeder 4 months ago
Good summary
MadMicas 4 months ago
Who says the universe began to exist?
TrachyBasalt 5 months ago
@TrachyBasalt Science.
drcraigvideos 5 months ago 10
@drcraigvideos Did it? I thought time was thought to be infinite, therefore the universe didn't start, just constantly changes, expanding and contracting under the laws of physics. Silly me.
sids500 4 months ago
@sids500 Indeed. You should also look up the Borde Guth Vilenkin model which shows the universe must have a beginning. So, does the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
drcraigvideos 4 months ago 3
24,294 wow.... 98 people live in the empty chair Universe.
KBrimstone 5 months ago
man... Dawkins is like mayweather vs pacquiao that fight wont happen and this debate neither, so sad.
trickjacko 6 months ago
Mr. Dawkins has stated already that he doesn't debate creationists anymore. While it's unfortunate that the biblethumpers have taken this to mean they've "won", this in fact lends no credit to the preposterous idea of creationism by default. Mr. Dawkins is simply sick of giving credit to creationism to begin with, by remotely entertaining the idea by debating it. Evolution is not debateable, it is scientific fact. So any sort of "debate" just ends up being an emotional debate from the theist.
Faustaao 6 months ago 2
@Faustaao "Mr. Dawkins has stated already that he doesn't debate creationists anymore."
Uhm, okay. Dr. Craig is NOT a creationist: watch?v=y7WNzoiUAe8.
Happy?
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 3
@drcraigvideos a) Dawkins refuses to debate theists in general, including creationists. b) If Dr. Craig is not a creationist, why does he want to debate an evolutionary biologist?
Faustaao 6 months ago
@Faustaao a) Really? Dawkins debated McGrath and Lennox. And last I saw neither one of them were creationists. Furthermore, you haven't even addressed the video link. I just wish you'd admit that you now know Craig is not a creationist. b) Why not? Dawkins thinks anybody who believes in God is living in a delusion, why not debate that? By Dawkins' own admission, he should debate Craig: watch?v=fFvgiH_MMdk. In Dawkins' book he tackles the existence of God. So why fear a debate on that topic?
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 5
@drcraigvideos Dr. Craig called himself somewhere between a progressive creationist and moderate evolutionist or something along those lines. Why can he not just define his position?
Faustaao 6 months ago
@Faustaao Because he's agnostic when it comes to progressive creationism and theistic evolution. He even said so: watch?v=cSc92EDm5gU. Progressive creationism is NOT the same as young-earth creationism, genius. Progressive creationists and theistic evolution both accept a universe that is billions of years old and they don't have a problem with common ancestry. Anyway, you haven't even answered the question: why would it be a problem for Craig and Dawkins to debate the existence of God?
drcraigvideos 6 months ago
@Faustaao
´´Evolution is not debateable, it is scientific fact´´
Excuse me numbnuts....
Evolutionary changes within species is indeed a undebateable scientific fact, but the whole controversy, you smartass, is the hypothesis that BECAUSE OF THOSE EVOLUTIONARY CHANGES, all of life can be directed back to one single ancestor....
And for that claim, einstein, there is terrible evidence.
That said, WLC is open for theistic evolution....
tjobv 6 months ago
@Faustaao
That said, Dawkins will simply get humiliated in a debate with Prof. WLC.
He will get humiliated just like Hitchens got humiliated, just like Harris got humiliated, just like Atkins got humiliated, and just like so many others got humiliated in a debate with WLC.
You know why?
Because they and their arguments SUCK! They all SUCK! They cant produce any reasonable case for Atheism, and try to hide behind the claim that they dont have to produce a case.
Dawkins is a coward!
tjobv 6 months ago 2
Life is fleeting ever so fast. Your time on Earth is so very short. If you believe it is only about yourself so be it, I hold no domain over your life. I cannot tell you what to do, or what to say. If you spend your days defiling his name, or praising it...you should know I'm no better than you. We are all equal in the eyes of God. Please know this, banish ur pride, repent you sins, accept what Jesus did for you...and you will be as pure as freshly fallen snow. Copy and paste this msg Christians
supersonicfaceplant 6 months ago
Wouldn't it be cool if Dawkins actually showed up, fully prepared to debate, surprising everyone by walking out onto the stage at the last moment, in order to gain a surprise tactical advantage over Craig? Oh, wait, he would still lose.
Smithfriend 6 months ago 3
Poor guy, feel so hurt that Dawkins won't debate him. Let's all buy him a kitten.
jippy33 6 months ago
Dawkins is god
thach1ef 6 months ago
@thach1ef Then tell this god of yours to grow a pair and debate Craig.
drcraigvideos 6 months ago 7
Dawkins is truly a coward.
telofajoe 6 months ago 5
"Frankly, Craigh spanked Hitchens like a foolish child".
telofajoe 6 months ago
Dr. Craig's Thoughts: "And then there was one..."
Diachi26 6 months ago
For an "offended" militant atheist whose aim is to "kill religion," Dawkins is quite the coward :p
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago 5
Is there a video for this debate where Dr. Craig and Dawkins were present?
LiveForGreatness 7 months ago
Anyone ever notice the cowardice on drcraigvideos part? A skeptic points out how the things Craig says is garbage, then the skeptic mysteriously stops commenting and comments go on moderation.
MootsCountdown 7 months ago
@MootsCountdown So your saying you have more confidence in yourself or other atheist debating Dr. Craig other than Richard Dawkins? Well why don't you propose them to debate or yourself to debate instead of making endless irrelevant comments on youtube. Face it, you know Dawkins is going to lose!
Diachi26 6 months ago 2
I disliked it because of the "quote-mining" in this video. Now I'm quite curious as to why other people liked or disliked the video?
Is it because Dawkins seems like a coward for not participating? Maybe because this Craig character seems to have a valid point?
Seriously...Dr.Dawkins gets so many of the same ignorant questions every time he debates...Of course he would not get into a disscussion with this zealot. It would just be repeating the same non-sense over and over again...
thecosmosisgreat 7 months ago
@thecosmosisgreat I disliked your comment because you haven't shown any quote-mining whatsoever. You're just doing a typical cowardly drive-by comment. Dawkins has absolutely NO EXCUSE (NONE!) for walking away on a debate with Craig. Craig is not a creationist. And Craig has a doctorate in theology (along with a doctorate in philosophy) which makes him more than qualified than a Bishop. Honestly, why kiss Dawkins' butt?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos the whole video is mined. Just as LikeALeadZeppelin said: he cannot debunk Craig's misinformed arguments as quickly as Craig can spew them out. As well, being a theologian, Craig does not present evidence for his claims, he simply provides premises. And just like Dr. Dawkins says around 5:50 in the film.
thecosmosisgreat 7 months ago
@thecosmosisgreat Uh, yeah, Craig never gives evidence for his premises like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or the BVG Theorem. Nothing gets passed you.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago 12
@thecosmosisgreat Craig ALWAYS gives evidence for his claims. That is why Dr. Harris changed his position and say, "good evidence", so please do not say he doesn't give evidence, not even sophisticated atheists would ever say such a thing consciously.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thesangster You have that perfectly backwards. Craig never offers anything but fallacy in his premises, he certainly doesn't offer evidence that they're accurate.
MootsCountdown 7 months ago
@MootsCountdown Its funny you say that because those atheist champions are never able to exploit them during their debates with him, only on YouTube comment boxes, you'll read all kind of stuff against him. Maybe you should help these guys out and prep them before they go out there and make a fool of themselves since you all(atheists), in these forums, tend to know more than Atkins, Hitchens, Wolpert, and Harris. No one in the audience has nothing to say either, only here. That's funny.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thesangster Are you kidding me? Hitchens ripped him a new one.
This is MootsCountdown by the way, my other account was cowardly blocked by drcraigvideos.
MoonriseKingdom 7 months ago
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@MootsCountdown I stated that even atheists say that he does bring evidence, so you're not only against me, but against your fellow atheists as well. It's better to say, that he doesn't offer and convincing argument or evidence. I can bring evidence to a court room and it may not be convincing to win the case, but it is still evidence. So I am not backwards whatsoever unless your buddies, Hitchens, Harris, Wolpert, and Atkins are backwards also, since they say that also. I'm sorry not Wolpert.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thesangster 'I stated that even atheists say that he does bring evidence'
And I'm saying he doesn't, are you going to quote me or just the people who would confirm what you already wanted to believe?
If something doesn't favor one position it's not evidence, it's just extraneous data.
MoonriseKingdom 7 months ago
@MoonriseKingdom Well I'm assumed that you would be in agreement with the champions of your position. So now I know that your'e divided in this instance, then I don't know how else I can convince you. If definitions are relative, then you can define it how ever you please. But I will stand by the universal definition of what evidence is, and based upon that alone, Craig has ALWAYS provided evidence for his argument and claims, EVERY TIME. This is my unbiased position.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thesangster There's no division, everyone holding my position can pretty clearly see that Craig employs nothing but fallacy. These have been exposed in debate, particularly with Hitchens.
'Craig has ALWAYS provided evidence for his argument and claims, EVERY TIME'
Such as? Name a single piece
MoonriseKingdom 7 months ago
@MoonriseKingdom "everyone holding my position can pretty clearly see that Craig employs nothing but fallacy." Oh yeah, name the fallacy. We have Ad Hominem, Circular Reasoning, Post Hoc, Red Herring, etc. Which one is it? So far none of his debaters has ever exploited that. Zindler was the only 1 that attempted that, and he got the definition of Ad Hominem wrong. So all you're doing is making claims without EVIDENCE, that is interesting. lol.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thesangster 'name the fallacy'
For instance, the KCA can only conclude in one of two fallacies. If physics stands, then it means the universe has existed indefinitely making the KCA confirmation bias.
If physics doesn't stand, then trying to apply causality is taxi-cabbing.
TheTShirtOfTheDead 7 months ago
@TheTShirtOfTheDead I don't understand your point on your statement, "If physics stands, then it means the universe has existed indefinitely making the KCA confirmation bias." It seems to me that theory would be supported, not be bias, meaning if physic stands. Maybe I need to understand what you mean by "physic stands". Thanks.
thesangster 7 months ago
@thecosmosisgreat
"I disliked it because of the "quote-mining" in this video."
Would that include the quote from ATHEIST academic Dr Daniel Came?
Funny how you don't provide any explanations or examples.
Birdieupon 7 months ago
@thecosmosisgreat rofl William Lane Craig quote mining?! May it never be said!
Spanked Hitchens? This is what amused me in this video. Watch the debate, seriously. Hitchens refuses to commit to a strong atheist position during the debate and for this reason Craig is said to have won despite Hitchens crushing him in every other way. It is laughable.
JediVerse 7 months ago
@JediVerse It's just beyond me how people think Hitchens "crushed" Craig. Hitchens did terrible. He didn't even give a closing statement. Even Common Sense Atheism said, "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child." I know Hitchens means the world to you, but be fair.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos lol "Fair" would be being able to post comments freely on here without them pending approval. For all the talk of calling Dawkins cowardly it is you who are truly the coward.
JediVerse 7 months ago
@JediVerse So, you think it would be brave to open comments so any atheist can post any off-topic and immature material? That doesn't make much sense. If you would have a brain in your head maybe you would realize this. I know that may be hard for you to figure out, but try, okay? Try! You can do it!
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos
I've seen people whining on Dawkins website, about a New Statesman article which mentioned that even atheists admitted that Hitchens lost his debate with Craig. The hot-heads on there screaming about how Hitchens "destroyed" Craig and how the NS "cannot be trusted" or was "biased" was simply pathetic.
Some atheists simply get their heads so far up their hero's behind that they can't see the debate.
Birdieupon 7 months ago 14
what is this a movie?
davespark10 7 months ago
The answer to why Dawkins will not debate Craig alone: he cannot debunk Craig's misinformed arguments as quickly as Craig can spew them out. As well, being a theologian, Craig does not present evidence for his claims, he simply provides premises.
This is why creationists can appear to win debates; they simply dismiss scientifically rigorous evidence while presupposing that a sky-fairy created everything all for the sake of a vacuous morality play.
LikeALeadZeppelin 7 months ago
@LikeALeadZeppelin *SIGH* Craig is not a creationist: watch?v=_IQoLg7w-_4. Why deny the truth that Dawkins is too scared to debate Craig? Instead of blindly following Dawkins while glossing over evidence Craig provides, why not just see the truth for what it is?
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
@drcraigvideos I thought Dr. Craig was a creationist, just not a young earth creationist. Is that not correct? I watched the video you posted the link to and he was just saying that he believed the universe was 13.7 billion years old. He still believes it was created though right?
DrKnowsMore 7 months ago
@DrKnowsMore If you're defining creationism as someone who merely believes that God created the universe, then you can call him a "creationist" if you want (that's a strange definition though, because that would make theistic evolutionists creationists!). But traditionally creationism has been defined as someone who thinks the universe is 6-10,000-years old. Whereas Craig believe the universe was created 13.7 billion years ago. Anyway, I hope you're done stalking me now.
drcraigvideos 7 months ago
"Why won't I debate Dr. Craig?" Dawkins explains a news conference.... "Uuuh, because he would kick my tiny, flat arse right out of the auditorium! THAT's why!!" lol
SomethingReal1119 7 months ago
@bcbk93
Richard Dawkins is willing to debate people who believe the earth is 6000 years old, but when it comes to debating the person who humiliated his buddies Hitchens, Harris and Atkins, he acts like a loudmouth schoolboy who willing to scream and talk, but to scared to fight....
tjobv 7 months ago
Dawkins has the most pathetic excuses ever created. He's actually accepting that he will always fail to delegitimize the Christian theist.
So, Lennox destroyed Dawkins' confidence, Hitchens has 'evolved' too much, Harris was always the pet of the team... wow! new atheism fell and I'm still in my 20's, theese are excellent days to be a Christian :D
IloveYOUviruses 7 months ago
@IloveYOUviruses
Hahah right on bro!!
tjobv 7 months ago
I think people should stop debating... the concept of God is just not a very good topic. If one can debate rationally on this topic in the past, there won't be any debate today... no extraordinary evidence has been presented in the past few millenniums. People believe so much about God are generally behaving like Harold Camping, they CANNOT be argued with! So stop wasting time, protect our children with good education, and let those people believe whatever they want.
dvfer444 7 months ago
God exists in the minds of people who want/wish/need to believe in ever lasting life. It really is opium for the masses.
Personally, I do not believe in a personal God. There just isnt any convincing argument or evidence. I cannot suspend critical thinking and analysis just so that I can become a 'believer'. Even if I could, I would be left unconvinced and deeply unhappy that I was deluding myself.
Maybe something did 'start it all'. But I very much doubt it cares I masterbate at night.
DIGITALSCREAMS 7 months ago
@bcbk93
"Oh come on....Craig is a theologian with a degree in what? RELIGION"
Are you blind? Should I have made the words "PhD PHILOSOPHY" any bigger?
"no scientific degree"
If you're implying that science is all that's needed to discover truth then, guess what, you've made a PHILOSOPHICAL statement - and a self-refuting one at that!
Seriously, some of these youtube atheists are worryingly unevolved!
Birdieupon 8 months ago
@bcbk93 Craig has a degree in analytical philosophy, genius. He specializes in cosmology and is a philosopher of science. Please try to be more reasonable.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos
Not to mention learning how to read! How much more clearly does it need to be spelled out to these idiots!?
Birdieupon 8 months ago
@bcbk93
If he's such a bullshitter, why can't you make convincing arguments rather than calling Dr. Craig names? Is it because you're angry that he's kicking atheist ass, and your team is losing? If he's so great, why is Dawkins avoiding Craig? Dawkins is afraid, and you can't deal with it. Go back to reading the "God Delusion" if it makes you feel better about being wrong.
IoannesBellator 8 months ago
I can hear the choir of the angry, butthurt atheists. They can't seem to deal with how wrong they are, so they'll claim victory, even if reality speaks so contrarily.
IoannesBellator 8 months ago
who are the two at 2.44 to 2.50? I'm unfamiliar.
theobesekid 8 months ago
dawkins needs to man up...
mlsmithers4 8 months ago
Dawkins is always very eager to debate people in his documentaries, nobody has ever heard about and nobody will ever hear about.
But when it comes to debate the WLC, who has humiliated Chris Hitchens, Sam Harris, Peter Atkins etc., he is to scared.
WLC will humiliate Dawkins as well.
The arguments for Christian Theism are much better then Atheism. Atheism is a internetcult followed by proud and ignorant people....
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv Atheists are "proud and ignorant people?" What? If there was any real evidence of a god or any particular religion, any honest atheist would convert in a heartbeat. Thoughtful atheists care about if what they think is true or not based on evidence. Most atheists are trying to discover what is true while theists are only concerned with proving their own beliefs. That is arrogant! The more a thoughtful person talks, the further theists shove their fingers in their ears.
SoverignCitizen 8 months ago
@SoverignCitizen
Let's start from this point: There is no evidence for Atheism NOR for Theism.
So let's see who has the better ARGUMENTS instead....
And yes, you as an Atheist have to come up with arguments for your beliefs as well, even though Atheism is just a negative.
It is very simple: The arguments for Christian Theism, are much better then for Atheism.
One only needs to look at the debates between Dr. Craig, and Hitchens, Harris, Atkins etc., who have been completely humiliated.
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv Atheism is not a religion, dogma or a belief. Atheism is a response to the massive claims that religions/theists make about their god(s). I am not arrogant enough to say I can prove their is no god. It seems that god is man made however. I am an atheist because people who say they KNOW god want some authority over everyone else w/o evidence. I don't need to produce evidence as to why there is no spiderman, the people who claim spiderman is real need to produce it for others to see.
SoverignCitizen 8 months ago
@SoverignCitizen
Well it depends on what you mean here with ''authority over everyone else'', if a certain group of people has a different worldview, then, by democratic means, they will try to push that worldview in society.
When you vote for a Liberal party, and i for a Conservative party, then we try to put our values on to each other. That's simply Democracy.
Or were you thinking of taking voting right away for some group of people..............??????
tjobv 8 months ago
@SoverignCitizen
Oh, and by the way, one only needs to look at the average behaviour of Internet Atheist:
Mocking, scoffing, bullying, laughing, irritating, challenging, cursing etc.
The majority of Atheists are proud, arrogant, and thus ignorant indeed........
Atheism is a internet cult for people who want to feel themselves smart and intellectual, in this, you need a group of people whom you can call dumb and non-intellectual........
tjobv 8 months ago
@tjobv I don't look down at people, I am not that insecure! I don't think they should have authority over others based on nothing but fiction. Atheists may mock and scoff, but they don't burn "witches", stone children/women/homosexuals, or use atheism to justify child abuse and mass murder. Stalin was an atheist, but that is not why he did what he did. He was a psychopath. Religious atrocities happen in the name of theism with the "blessing" of their god. Big difference.
SoverignCitizen 8 months ago
@SoverignCitizen
Stalin indeed didn't kill people in name of Atheism, he did it BECAUSE of Atheism.
In Atheism, there is no good or evil, no morality, only social conduct. In an Atheist worldview, the Holocasut was not evil, it was relative, it do was however against social conduct.
So you talk about burning witches, stoning women/children etc. Tell me now, what is wrong with this accdording to you?
Why are those things evil according to you???
Evil does not exist right......????
tjobv 8 months ago
LOVE the Debate in Mexico.
ForceOfLight 8 months ago
I must enjoy the fact that Dawkins, even though he is highly intelligent - has proven repeatedly that he is contradtictory - and by his sheer unwillingness to debate Craig - means that Dawkins can't do the one thing he can't admit to. He must save face - he can never admit he is wrong or may be wrong. I've never seen it. Craig doesn't take "offense" and rely on pure emotion, rather, he seeks to offer rational point-by-point arguments as to why he feels his position is better. Boo to Dawkins.
godaistudios 8 months ago
Wow, kewl video!
aerycksmusic 8 months ago
argument from ignorance fallacy. have a nice day. i have watched the debate and found many of W.L.C arguments to be utterly infantile.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist You have to be kidding me after establishing the cause must be immaterial timeless etc. he then launches into what possible entities could meet these requirements either abstract objects or a mind and of course abstract objects have no causal powers, and thus a mind is the only possible entity that could meet the requirements that are proven by the argument there is no argument from ignorance you're simply ignorant of the argument
hac330136 8 months ago
@hac330136 Telling me something is immaterial doesn't tell me what something is and the same goes for timeless etc. Making such statements isnt an answer to anything. If you ask what was in my hand I could go on all day about what it isn't and never answer your question.
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist "Telling me something is immaterial doesn't tell me what something is and the same goes for timeless etc." *SIGH* The laws of logic are immaterial, invariant, universal, aboslute, and timeless. They never change and it will always be the way it is. Talk about infantile! You couldn't pass a grade school class in logic.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist Those attributes are incredibly informative into the nature of a thing, to know something is timeless reveals a great deal about the nature and state of affairs in which a thing exists. Only a being who isn't material or bound by time could possibly pre exist the physical universe. So to say that the cause of the universe is a mind that is maximally excellent, which of course is to say that that thing exemplifies omnipotence omniscience and goodness, is very informative.
hac330136 8 months ago
argument from ignorance fallacy. have a nice day
OpenAirAtheist 8 months ago
@OpenAirAtheist
You fal even worse than Richard Dawkins.
You defend yourslef better with the mouth shut.
ForceOfLight 8 months ago
As an atheist I think Dawkins has made a big mistake refusing to debate Craig. He's said in the past that Craig's credentials are poor and he doesn't have the time to honor Craig with a debate and now Dr.Craig's made a great name for himself and people are demanding they debate. I hope Dawkins can swallow his pride, take the possible attacks he'll take for the things he's said in the past, and just debate with him already. Harris and Hitchens had no dilemma when considering a debate with him!
Snyderman41104 8 months ago
Oh God!!! Craig in Cambridge!!!
ForceOfLight 8 months ago
Dawkins will never debate Craig for the same reason that I would never debate Craig - because i know he would crush me. plain and simple.
and quite frankly, its probably a good thing. a debate between the two would serve no purpose other than making Dawkins look like a fool.
bunshine8plutz 8 months ago
HEY YOU GUYS SHOULD CHECK OUT MY NEW CHANNEL THEME!!! HAHA IT'S HILARIOUS!
RaytownSoClassof2010 8 months ago
We often times disagree what it means to qualify as "Christian". Allow me but onew small chance to show disimilarities. cmdmt 5 Honor thy mother & father. Evryone whther culture, gender, even age will intepret "honor" differently & even change with life experiences. Are we so much different as a worshipper when we articulate differently as long as the actualization doesn't butt up against the doctrine itself? We all intepret things slightly different..."love/forgiveness" will always be key.
hexusziggurat 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat ...you atheist do seem to have a problem discerning between cause and effect. This is what is true within the Pentecostal faith too. Ask any pastors and ask to see their credo. If that is added to what I have stated - "it will be there" in the credo along with all their doctrines. What I have stated, if you just check, will be a part of the doctrinal credo of "every" Christian Church. There will be other things - things that separate them from others - but salvation is the same.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat Now like I said - you may have been told something else - but it is wrong. If what they said is true of their faith - then it WILL BE in the credo. If it is not in there, then those who are not telling you this are wrong. My point is - salvation is the same for all, and to be a Christian you must be saved - not just go to church, sign up and pay tithes - you must accept Jesus Christ as your savior. You must believe as in John 3:16-17.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves Correction: I meant to say "...then those who ARE telling you this are wrong." And their headquarters should be notified so that 'error' is not passed on.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat I'm sorry for my last two posts - they were meant for Mortalhuman. But here you are making the same mistake that he is making. You are confusing doctrinal differences with salvation. If we all had "all" the same doctrines, there would be only one denomination. We KNOW there are differences, of course. But SALVATION comes by only one way. All Christian Faiths agree and you will find it as "part" of every credo or they are not Christian. The differences do not center on salvation.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves Actually, you are referring to scriptural interpretation. And, of course, you are right. But there is no room for interpretation error when it comes to salvation. The scriptures are plain and clear - it has not been left up to interpretation. This is what we are talking about here - how one is "saved" - it is the same in all Christian faiths - 'By the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ'. Without this salvation one cannot truly claim be Christian, is what I've been saying.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves "If we all had "all" the same doctrines, there would be only one denomination." even if we had it ...my point is that we will interpret it differently. Its not the differences in scriptural writings from book to book that i'm getting at..you'd never avoid that. OK for the purpose of what i am getting at, please explain to me what "All Christian Faiths agree" on?
hexusziggurat 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat I just did - please go back to my other posts and read what I have been regurgitating for about three days now. But this is what I've said - To be a Christian, you must agree that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and that salvation comes by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, and that He is the only way to salvation.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves ok sounds great. no disputes. A rather fundamental basic credo to follow but i agree thats the core of what it means to qualify as "Christian". Its usually all the other "supporting stuff" thats in dispute when we either translate or interpret. peace upon you brother.
hexusziggurat 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat Thank you - and to you also, my friend.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat Like Leonard Ravenhill shouted at the top of his lungs: "There is only one way to Heaven, there are many ways to Hell." Don't all Christians believe that?
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@hexusziggurat Darn - lol - that last post was meant for you but I directed it at me for some reason.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
Craig reminds me of a slimy used car salesman. He's simply another evangelist in philosopher's clothing. He's not in the same realm as Bertrand Russell, Nietzsche, Sartre or any other prominent philosopher of the last 150 years.
His Kalam Cosmological Argument ( a re-hatched and stale one borrowed from Islam) has been used throughout history. Many philosophers have refuted that weak position. Only theists w/ imaginary friends & an inferior education are impressed w/ such a buffoon. ;-D
Sexxistentialist 8 months ago
@Sexxistentialist He has a PHD in philosophy.
Well, I guess it doesn't count since he's not an atheist.
aaronk1994 8 months ago
@aaronk1994 : I know he has a Phd in Philosophy. He is still not on the same level as Russell, Nietzsche, etc. The reason I made that point is because in his Kalam Cosmological Argument he later takes a leap when he concludes "god" is the First Cause . . . 1) why does it have to be a god? 2) Why does he take a leap and claim that said god is the god of the bible?
Without using the bible (since doing so would be circular reasoning) why is the god of the bible the one and "true" god?
Sexxistentialist 8 months ago
@Sexxistentialist There is no leap. I wish more people would give an effort to actually try understanding the argument: watch?v=YqzqEFw5_1c. If it satisfies you that the world popped into existence out of nothing, well, you talk about a leap of faith. Or given the scientific fact that the universe actually had a cause, and you actually think the universe is eternal, well, go nutts then. I'd rather give in to reason and science.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos: You rather give into reason and SCIENCE?<--LMAO... Is Science the reason why most physicists and people with a Phd's across various disciplines in science are atheists? That is a statistical fact . . . not my opinion!
I fully understand the KCA position. But, who you you think you are fooling when you insinuate Craig is not an evangelical . . . who after concluding the First Cause is "god" - that said god is NOT the god of the bible? That is an extension to his argument.
Sexxistentialist 8 months ago
@Sexxistentialist *SIGH* It looks like you've been reading up on Sam Harris and Bill Maher. Those scientists with PhDs who are atheists aren't atheists due to science, genius. The next time you do a study on statistics get the whole story.
You haven't even begin to touch on the link I gave on the KCA. The KCA doesn't mention God in its premise and conclusions, because it's only upon METAPHYSICAL grounds you can deduce that God exists. Try to be fair and learn something, ok?
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Can you please tell me where Dr. Craig talks about the B-theory of time. I read somewhere that the B-theory of time destroy the Kalam. Have you ever heard this? Thanks!
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing He discusses B-Theory of time with Robert Lawrence Kuhn. Dr. Craig says that A-theory of time is only compatible with KCA. B-Theory cannot be compatible. Some philosophers disagree however.
drcraigvideos 8 months ago
@drcraigvideos Thanks for the response. One last question if you dont mind. Is it true that most philsophers and scientists reject the A-theory of time? If so, is A-theory only popular among believers? Thanks again!
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@aaronk1994 : The overall point I make is that Craig's god is the "god of the gaps." He is no different than the typical theist who postulates the existence of a god WITHOUT concrete evidence that can be examined and scrutinized SCIENTIFICALLY. His proof is angled from the ontological perspective in disguise (to rephrase Kant). He uses philosophy to try to give credibility to his evangelical stance.
REMINDER: He who asserts the positive has the ONUS of PROOF. Where's the EVIDENCE?
Sexxistentialist 8 months ago
@Sexxistentialist So go ahead and refute the argument for us.
RaytownSoClassof2010 8 months ago
put up or shut up Dawkins
jmanexpress 8 months ago
this is pretty epic but most importantly it exposes how much of a coward Dawkins really is
jmanexpress 8 months ago 2
@hempartist420 I struggle with the same problem. Usually most christians begin the personal abuse very early. And you are right about the ignorance of christians to the bible. I began a conversation with three street preachers the other night and they did not even have a bible with them! One had an app on his Iphone and they were visibly surprised to read that Jesus had used the appropriate whipping of slaves as a parable as to how we would be punished.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman I meant to say "...but at least we agree on what Biblical Christianity IS". For example - we all believe that to be saved we must be born again and on what that "means" - however, we may disagree on how that may manifest itself in the life and worship of a believer.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves It is a fair observation because you don't consider the possibility that it may be you who are in error and that other christians may be the true christians. You only regard your own interpretations of scripture as the correct interpretations. You deny that people who read the bible and identify problems with it regarding historical and scientific accuracy, morality and consistency have understanding of what is written. It is a very egocentric approach you have taken.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Your last post is absurd. I have done no such thing. And of course my "Christianity" is "true". First of all, where have I even declared "MY" Christianity so you could judge it so? Secondly, Christianity is Christianity - it is right because black is black, white is white and Christianity is Christianity. As far as "my" interpretation is concerned - to be a Christian, there are certain things about scripture that must be believed that are not up to interpretation.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves And not all christians believe that they need to be saved, or born again. Some just believe in God and that Jesus was a good man, and think no more than that. Others insist that unless you receive the Holy Spirit and the gift of tongues you are not a true christian. The problem is that the NT gives vague and inconsistent instructions as to how to receive eternal life. Is it belief,repentance, an invitation to Jesus, the gift of tongues, good works, reading his word, combinations?
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman WRONG - The persons you just mentioned are NOT Christians. About those who claim gift of tongues, you're wrong again - they do not claim those who do not speak in tongues is not a true Christian. That is what I was talking about in my other post - we all believe we must be born again and understand what it means - but how it is manifest in a person is debated. No one says the other is not a Christian. Also, don't do as so many atheists do and confuse conduct with salvation.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I'm sorry, but as a young man I was a member of "Students for Christ" and they specifically believed and taught that if you do not receive the gift of tongues you are not saved. they backed their beliefs up with scripture. If you believe otherwise they would say that you are not a true christian. They might even use capital letters like you have.
The people I mentioned are not christians according to you. According to them they are christians. Who is right, and why?
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Students for Christ do not declare that if you don't speak in tongues you are not saved. They believe if you don't speak in tongues that you do not have the "indwelling" of the Holy Spirit. And those people are Christians - just so you know - I hereby declare it. They are right to believe that those who speak in tongues and those who don't are both saved as long as they are Christians, because that is what they believe. Who is right about the indwelling? Honestly, I'm not sure.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I mean I don't know if the "indwelling" should be manifested the same way in all of us. I don't think so - I don't believe so. I believe that indwelling occurs to all believers. But that is a discussion for believers to have among themselves.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You could not be more wrong. SFC were adamant to the point of fanatacism regarding the gift of tongues, and they specifically taught that if you did not receive the Holy Spirit, and speak in tongues then you are not saved. It was almost the first thing I was asked when I joined, and they organised regular services with altar calls to facilitate the act. It may dawn on you one day that not all christian believers agree with you.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Just Google "Students For Christ Doctrinal Statement". Then you can stop insisting on things that aren't true. No, they don't all agree with me on all things - I never said they did. We were talking about what is required to become a believer in Christ. You were there - so you say, okay, I can't help what you experienced in your group. But Students For Christ is a world wide organization and their doctrine is the same everywhere.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman There are 11 points in the Students for Christ Doctrinal Statement. If you read them, you will see that no such doctrine as you have stated exists.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves And yet that is what they believed, and taught, and promoted. I was there. I was a member, and that is what they believed wholeheartedly. They were quite antagonistic toward your christianity. One preacher memorably characterised believers in other churches as "lemon suckers". It is quite funny that you would point to a doctrinal statement as proof of what people believe. I never said it was public doctrine, I said that it was what they believed.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman "They were quite antagonistic toward your christianity. One preacher memorably characterised believers in other churches as "lemon suckers". " Ha - lemon suckers - that's funny. But it's funny that you say, "...your christianity...". Just what do you think is "MY" Christianity?
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I couldn't care less what your christianity is. My argument has been that whatever your beliefs are, you consider them the true christian beliefs, and when I mention rival interpretations you had no hesitation in saying "WRONG - The persons you just mentioned are NOT Christians." It is not the specific claims that you make regarding what you consider to be a true christian that interests me, it is your conviction that only your particular interpretation could possibly be correct.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman I'll tell you exactly what "MY" Christianity is. Just Google "Students For Christ Doctrinal Statement" and read what "MY" doctrinal statement is.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves sorry, christadelphian, although there may be a christadenplian offshoot of christianity! The difference of course between species and religion in my analogy is that horses don't accuse cows of not being true mammals, because they moo instead of whinney
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman con't...it's like saying I'm a God believing, God worshiping Atheist. You do understand - right? - that you must believe/accept certain things in order to be able to 'truthfully' say your this or that - in this case, a Christian. One has to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah, and that He died, was raised from the dead and ascended into Heaven and sits at the right hand of the Father, or, by definition, you're not a Christian. con't...
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves The atheist analogy fails because it is not a belief system, but I know what you are trying to say. You believe that your definition of christianity is correct, and that to think otherwise means that you are not christian. What I am pointing out to you is that other people define christianity differently, and that, like you, they can produce some scripture or logic to justify their belief. They think your definition is wrong, as you do theirs.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman "...other people define christianity differently..." This is at the heart of your confusion. People do not define "Christianity" differently. Christianity has A meaning. There are varying Denominations WITHIN Christianity because there are different opinions, interpretations, etc. "within" the Faith. But to be a Christian you have to believe and accept those things that define you as Christian. I don't know why you insist on arguing the point. You might want to believe...cont
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You are making very hard work of this 4GSL. It may help if I explain that Christianity has not been objectively defined. There have been attempts to define it and redefine it, such as the nicene creed, but even then there was such dissention that the various sects of christianity, all convinced as you are that their definition alone was correct, turned their backs on the council. The reformation again attempted to redefine it, division was the result.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman That is ridiculous. You're talking about doctrines. That is not the same thing as defining the word Christianity, or what is required to be one. You're not Christian so it doesn't matter anyway what you think or what you figure others believe. You're arguing about doctrinal differences within the Christian community and don't realize that that's what you're doing. So there's no reason to just regenerate things with you. So believe what you will. Go in peace - God bless.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I'll remind you that it is you that claimed that doctrines conclusively defined what people believe, on your statements regarding the specific beliefs of people I knew in SFC. I hope that I have explained to you that people don't refer to doctrine when defining their personal beliefs, and as far as beliefs go, everything is subjective and coloured by one''s own personal experience and desires, So there are as many christianities as there are christians.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Again - salvation comes by grace through faith - one must be born again - Jesus is the way. When one places their faith and trust in Him and accepts His sacrifice as payment for their sins - is willing to have Him (the Holy Spirit) change them from within into a new creature - they are born again and saved by God's grace through their faith in Jesus the Christ, their Messiah and Lord. That is a Christian by definition, and that is the ONLY way - thus says the Lord.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves That's quite a lot of things there. As your moniker suggest you already know, John 3:16 states that belief alone in Jesus is what is required. You want to stipulate exactly what things we are to believe about Jesus. Other believers will be happy to just say they believe in Jesus, without accepting your extra sub-beliefs. I don't mind which you believe. I'm not trying to restrict what the meaning of "christian" is.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman "Other believers will be happy to just say they believe in Jesus, without accepting your extra sub-beliefs." No, sir, I have added nothing to John 3:16. Let one Christian come forth and deny that what I have said is not God's plan of salvation.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves For God so loved the world that whoever believes in him..... and places their faith and trust in Him and accepts His sacrifice as payment for their sins - is willing to have Him (the Holy Spirit) change them from within into a new creature - they are born again and saved by God's grace through their faith in Jesus the Christ, their Messiah and Lord., or repents of his sins - thereby acknowledging his need of the Savior for forgiveness, believes in his heart that Christ ... .cont
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves .... is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of those who will accept Him, that he was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven and will one day return to establish His Kingdom on Earth. Then he receives his forgiveness by grace of God through his demonstrated faith in Jesus the Christ, his Lord and Savior.....then they shall not die but have everlasting life!
I think you have added a teeny bit to John 3:16
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You may feel that because I am not a christian it does not matter what I think. That is not a very good argument. I can watch a soccer match and see when a player is offside without playing the game. I can probably see it better than the players on the field. I have no emotional investment my own religious belief so I am better able to appreciate that all people's religious beliefs are equal, and all of them are the true belief, according to them.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman How this is done: The person repents of his sins - thereby acknowledging his need of the Savior for forgiveness, believes in his heart that Christ is the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of those who will accept Him, that he was raised from the dead, ascended into heaven and will one day return to establish His Kingdom on Earth. Then he receives his forgiveness by grace of God through his demonstrated faith in Jesus the Christ, his Lord and Savior.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman cont'd...what your saying is true - but a Christian is a Christian based on those things I listed before. You said a person can believe that Jesus is not the Savior - He is just a good man and nothing else. Okay, you can believe that and "call" yourself a Christian if you want - but your not. I can get married and claim I'm a bachelor - but I'm not. You can "claim" anything even deny "facts" but that doesn't make you right - in fact - it makes you wrong. Maybe you...cont
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You are nearly there now. You seem to be accepting that other people can define christianity differently to you, and that even though their definition is not what you would call christian, they still consider themselves christian. The doctrinal definitions are attempts to objectively define christianity, but people define their beliefs subjectively, not according to objective standards and doctrines. This is why there is so much variation in belief.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves I could have this very same discussion with some of my old SFC friends they would have no hesitation in saying about your beliefs "Okay, you can believe that and "call" yourself a Christian if you want - but your not" Christianity is not objectively defined. There are many things recorded in the bible that are required for eternal life. Different believers make subjective choices about those requirements. they may differ from your choices, but who can say what is right?
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Ultimately, a Christian is one who has accepted Jesus Christ as their person Savior and puts their trust in Him for forgiveness of sin. If what you are saying (and I can see, as an atheist, why you would want to do this) is true, nobody can be sure of salvation. In light of scripture, that is ridiculous. It is quite true that it is spelled out perfectly how one is saved in scripture. There is no doubt. I have told you how. Let a believer come forth and deny it - not an atheist.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves Please understand that my motivation is not to upset your conviction that you have salvation. My motivation is to have you accept that those people who call themselves christian who you reject as being christian, also have a conviction that they have salvation and that you should accept that and not claim otherwise. The world is already full of dangerous religious intolerance and we should all minimise religious division where possible.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
@TheMortalhuman Listen, I'll tolerate anybodies religious convictions. But that isn't what we're talking about. We're talking about what defines one as a Christian. That is all. And I have just stated the only way one can be a Christian. You can be whatever you want, but you cannot be a Christian, by definition, without the things I have stated here. This isn't an opinion. This is a universal fact by anyone or organization that correctly calls themselves Christian. Now I must get some sleep.
4GodSoLoves 8 months ago
@4GodSoLoves You've already demonstrated a number of times that you are willing to ignore arguments of people solely on their religion or lack of it.
"You're not Christian so it doesn't matter anyway what you think..."
"Let a believer come forth and deny it - not an atheist."
so forgive me if I am not convinced of your tolerance.
You have stated the only way one can be a christian. Other people also state the only way one can be a christian, and they sometimes differ from your definition.
TheMortalhuman 8 months ago
Respond to this video...What I would hope that you would understand, and be able to accept, is that different people define christianity in different ways according to their own beliefs, or interpretations of scripture, and that their definition is as correct to them as your definition is to you. You may disagree with them vehemently, but you can accept with humility that yours is but one of the many ways scripture can be int