DEBATE William Lane Craig vs Christopher Hitchens Does God Exist 11

[ricoswerve1260]

WLC is another victim of a HitchSlap!!! You will be missed Hitchens 12/15/11

[BritishArrow]

Craig's mistake is that he thinks atheism is a worldview that needs to be defended. I don't see how someone as obviously intellgent as he is can not see the error in that. Atheism is simply not believing in something. It is not a movement, a philosophy, there is no theology to it. The only commonality between atheists as that they do don't think there's any evidence for God.

[malikzzzzz]

@BritishArrow Belief that God does not exist

[filoIII]

I KNEW IT!!! Hitchens thinks the cult of the dead woman is a part of Christianity.

[WinterXL]

@filoIII ...Catholics are Christians just like Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Mormons, Branch Davidians and all the rest. You don't get to pick and choose.

[filoIII]

@WinterXL You don't have a clue what a Christian is. You wouldn't know one even if one tried to correct you on Youtube. Christians believe Jesus is God and the only way to heaven w/out good deeds playing a part in it. Catholics believe Mary is co-redeemer w/ Jesus and they must also do good works for salvation. Same w/ mormons, j.w.'s, etc. You best stop listening to some blowhard egghead professor and his idea of what Christianity is and ask a real one if you want to know. We have no secrets.

[WinterXL]

@filoIII that is *your* definition of christianity. and guess what, you aren't allowed to simply redefine it for everyone everyone else just to selfishly make yourself more comfortable. just because someone has a divergent set of ancillary beliefs yet maintains the same fundamental belief system (belief in christ and following his teachings), doesn't mean you get to declare them apostate and that you yourself are the one true christian. talk about cultish.

[filoIII]

@WinterXL Mormons, catholics, and j.w.'s believe in good works to get to heaven. Eph 2:8-9 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. Titus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Jn 14:6b I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.--Get it?

[WinterXL]

@filoIII you misrepresent the catholic perspective... they don't say that good works alone get them into heaven. their perspective is more based on a dichotomy of good works bringing you to god vs. sinning distancing you from god, yet you re-frame in your perspective and from that standpoint you criticize. you seem quite bent on this propaganda. do you hate jews as well?

[filoIII]

I never said catholicism teaches good works ALONE. They say faith AND good works. That will never do. Did you not read the verses I quoted in my previous post? And know this, I don't hate catholics. But rest assured, I do hate the catholic religion. If you don't know that mormons, catholics, and others that place themselves under the banner of Christianity are not Christians, then anything else you say is suspect. Did you know mormons think their god, who was a man, lives on the star Kolob?

[WinterXL]

@filoIII i'll just mention again that *you* don't get to be the arbiter of what is "christian" and to redefine it to match your specific imaginings. because, like it or not, the definition is broader and less exacting than whatever your random sect happens to be.

[Jaybond63]

Why does religion always feel attacked?

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

I sometimes think William Lane Craig IS an atheist that defends Christianity as its more profitable and keeps him in speaking fees. He is an excellent debater as he misrepresents the other sides arguements masterfully, while trying to prop up the useless arguements that are his bread and butter.

Imagine if he came out as an atheist and admitted he is only after the money Christians feed him to lie for them.

I cannot believe he actually believes his own drival he spouts to defend christianity.

[Jazrebera]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 Whether he's an atheist or not his arguments are still undisputed.

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

@Jazrebera 'undisputed' you are joking right. His arguements are constantly disputed. The fact that they are so vague and he ignores the other sides responses repeatedly, does not mean their undisputed.

There is not one arguement he made that has not been demolished or at least disputed in debates.

[Jazrebera]

@AMomentOfClarity2011 Oh right, sorry I just seemed to have completely missed the 'demolishing' part. Would you mind explaining to me how Hitchens - or any other atheist - demolished the, lets say, moral argument?

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

@Jazrebera There is no objective morality, its always subjective to someone or group of people. The facts about holy books prove that there is no objective law as they clearly have certain moral guidlines that are abhorrant to modern people, because they were written by men, who based their morality on their times, which were far more barbaric than civilisations are today.

Also the concept of a god is irrelevant to morality. Craig likes to base arguements on assumptions (god exists = morality)

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, lettruthspeak.

[jamaicanification]

why does hitchens think that his personal venom against mother teresa, and the violence and abuse done in the name of religion means that god does not exist? Does that mean that when atheistic regimes such as that of Mao, pol pot, Stalin and other killed millions, atheism is non viable and deluded as well? The debate is whether god exists or not, and all he can do is side track himself to saying "well, all its done is killed millions of people". Thats not the debate. stay on topic....jeez

[bbiermanster]

WLC mops the floor with Hitchens...admittedly a tough thing to do. Hitchens is a good debater.

[jeffreysbrother]

@bbiermanster you're all over the place, partner.

[TheDcac]

@bbiermanster lol

[bridemusiccanada]

There are no atheists in foxholes.

[writersblock26]

@bridemusiccanada And how do you know this to be the case?

[ineternitypast]

pages of evidence that without God, there is no moral objectivity.

ad hominem is always the fall back of the ignorant

calling Craig or Christians names does not prove anything but this and the fact that this lot is as wrapped up in emotion as the rest of the world.

[bayanimills]

@ineternitypast It's interesting to note the line that you choose to ignore logic.

People here aren't using Ad Hominem as a method of argument for the advocacy for or against the existence of a supernatural God or Gods, they are expressing an opinion.

What WLC does so often, and does so well, is that he asks for EVIDENCE AGAINST GOD/S.

There is neither evidence FOR GOD/S, or AGAINST GOD/S.

It's a masterful ploy, but without an scientific merit - It's not valid testable statement.

[ElDuorPaso]

"Atheism is not true therefore Christianity is true",

I used to appreciate WLC, but fuck I am glad Hitch put him in his place.

WLC is one deluded nutter butter.

[ironcross66106]

Hitchens say's: THERE IS NO GOD!

That is an assertion, and he is being asked: what is your proof, and evidence, and he has NONE!

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106 Because you don't prove negatives.

Atheism is a null belief.

Christianity fails to deliver evidence of God/s -- Logically, if there is no evidence - DON'T BELIEVE IT!

[ironcross66106]

@bayanimills

If you cannot provide proof, or evidence that there is no God, then atheists don't state it as a fact that there is no God.

If you say: we don't know if there is a God, then that is fine, it simply means you don't know.

However when you say as an atheist: THERE IS NO GOD! be ready to give you proof and evidence for such a statement.

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106, You're an idiot.

I'm not saying your position is wrong BECAUSE you're an idiot, I'm saying you're an idiot because you don't understand Burden of Proof.

Evidence is not used to PROVE a NULL Hypothesis.

Evidence is used to PROVE the POSITIVE hypothesis.

Second, your argument is a Strawman. Your assertion that Atheism says "There is no God" is incorrect. Atheism's' stance is that there is no evidence for God.

Atheism does not make a POSITIVE CLAIM.

Atheism makes a NULL CLAIM.

[ironcross66106]

@bayanimills

I'm sorry to everyone that must see this response, some people cannot be reached until you speak their language, and your language is insults.

This is a person calling me an idiot, me knowing he is either a complete moron not knowing how to simply search Webster’s definition of atheism which would prove him wrong, or he is simply too lazy.

Which is it, are you a moron, or are you lazy?

[ironcross66106]

@bayanimills

P2.

I will post the definition for you in case you’re talking about something you are ill-informed of, or just in case you’re lazy.

Atheism:

1. archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : ( the doctrine that there is no deity )

Read very close, THE DOCTRINE THAT THERE IS NO DIETY!

That is a positive statement, THERE IS NO GOD!

Now enough with the lie that atheism makes no positive claim!

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106

Given your false dichotomy; I am able to search Webster, .'. I am lazy. But, so be it - I can be.

Now, let's READ VERY CLOSE again, because you conveniently skipped past the preceding sentence:

2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

-- THIS is the NULL HYPOTHESIS.

It is NOT a CLAIM.

It is NOT an OBJECTIVE STATEMENT

It is NOT a POSITIVE STATEMENT.

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106

What prevents you believing a Cheese Hat created the universe in substitution for a God?

"YOU CAN NOT PROVE THERE IS NO CHEESE HAT!"

By your logic, the same logic of "There is no evidence against it" -- you believe there IS a cheese hat.

It's not only insane, but totally devoid of any reasonable grounding in rationality.

It's classic compartmentalization of your life and the application of double standards of evidence.

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106

And if you want PROOF there is no God, a Christian God, look around you.

The only basis for the belief in God stems from the Bible, a book written by man and littered with falsehoods, inconsistencies, and conflicting reports of events supposed to have happened 2000 years ago.

The idea that the Bible could be divinely inspired is as absurd as the belief that the Earth is at the Center of the Universe - a concept that the POPE, the man with a direct line to GOD refuted.

[ironcross66106]

@bayanimills

Prove by looking around me, proves there is no God, a Christian God to be exact.

[bayanimills]

@ironcross66106

And the same can be said by any other supernatural deity.

[emptysilo]

Hitchens at 0:25

[Norwayflex89]

I feel sorry for the christians that they got this stupid fuck to represent em

[DbDBlackJack]

The burden of proof will always lie with the progenitor of the argument. Ex: If 2 persons were sitting on a bench quietly, then suddenly one proclaimed, "There is a god.", which of the 2 has the burden? This is the basis of ALL faith based religion. A claim to a historical untruth that does not warrant evidence. A Hitchensian Atheist does not have to prove, nor proclaim, that he is without belief. An Isla-judeo-christian does.

[redcheeksruby]

@DbDBlackJack The Atheist is also making a claim, to know that God doesn't exist. If the Atheist is truly an Atheist then he's claiming that God doesn't exist and must also provide evidence for his argument. Otherwise the Atheist is just relying on faith as he cannot prove his point either. This isn't a problem for a Christian, but it is often a problem for Atheists who are so quick to denounce faith yet rely on it for their own argument.

[eyelessking]

@DbDBlackJack

no both sides have to prove themselves. If I you destroy all of my points it it dose not mean that their are not other arguments to be made for the same point or even a 3rd unrelated view could be true. all sides have the burden of prof. It is just a cop out to say other wise. simply shooting down another argument dose not make your side the victor. so yes prof is always need.

[joshm60]

@eyelessking Do you really think that if one person asserted that fairies exist and another person said he doesn't believe that claim, that they both have a burden of proof? If so, you're an idiot because you fail to recognize that suspending belief is the default.

[eyelessking]

@joshm60 If that is the case Than I am suspend belief in your philosophical claims at lest until further proof is given. I see no reason that suspending belief should be the default.

[TheDcac]

@eyelessking ok, I have a yeti as a pet in my house. I feed him strawberry yoghurt and tuna mixed because it is the only thing he likes. Believe me?

[eyelessking]

@TheDcac

Their are both an infinite amount of true True claims as well as an infinite amount of false ones. I could make just as many ridicules claims in reverse were taking constant belief as the default would lead to a better result. So, were in is the advantage of setting up non belief as the default. your default belief , be it constant or non belief, would still be messed up 50% of the time. So, what I need is a reason that non would be better to have all the time.

[TheDcac]

@eyelessking I'm sorry but I find it pretty pointless to argue to people who can't even get their "they're"s right. This will likely be my last comment to you as such, unless you bring up a particularly good point (which I doubt considering your other grammar).

Now

1st point: "Lead[ing] to a better result" makes ZERO difference to the veracity of a claim.

2nd point: An infinite amount of untrue claims can be made but NOT an infinite amount of true ones (i.e. a claim is more likely to be false.

[TheDcac]

@TheDcac (this is part of the previous post so what I said still stands)

... than true, and thus evidence must be given to support a claim otherwise the default position should be disbelief).

[eyelessking]

@TheDcac By the nature of true and false claims they are always going to be equal. If it is a false claim that big foot is in your home than it is a true claim that he is not. For ever false one their also must necessarily be a true one. It's a binary set up. So, no their can't be more false ones than True one; because, in amusing that a give claim is false your necessary amusing there is a claim that hits the truth of the matter.

[TheDcac]

@eyelessking exactly, there are an infinite amount of true claims that something IS NOT the case, but only a finite amount of true ones that something IS the case. There is also an infinite amount of false claims that something is the case. You have effectively just proved my point. Thank you good sir. You just proved why the standard position should be disbelief.

[eyelessking]

@TheDcac You are basing your claim on probability, and if were going off probability than your wrong. If I make the claim that it’s true that I was not the first person to breath air or play basketball these must be added to your probabilistic account. I could go on to infinity just about the things that I was not the first to do and they would all be real and true truth claims . So, I don’t even think that it would be possible to do the math.

[TheDcac]

@eyelessking Now youre "breathing ect." example. That is not true, there may be a hell of a lot of claims such as these you could make, but they are not infinite.

[TheDcac]

@eyelessking I also just realised I did actually respond again to you despite saying I wouldnt. oh well im feeling less tired today so wth.

[joshm60]

@eyelessking “I see no reason that suspending belief should be the default.”

Then you're a gullible idiot who would accept ridiculous claims as well as contradictory claims.

“If that is the case Than I am suspend belief in your philosophical claims...”

We are talking about claims about reality, not philosophy.

[DWWEnganacious]

I laugh at everyone I see who thinks this debate was won by William Lame Craig, but then again self-delusional fools will think what they will.

[rowanjl]

@dmn22 his argument, as he keeps having to repeat, is that the evidence for a god is not compelling.

[dmn22]

@rowanjl thats right, he dismisses the argument for god, but gives no argument for his own worldview. As Bill says, he just asserts it.

[greyeyed123]

Now I know where all the theists get their debating tactics. Craig knows very well what atheism is, yet feigns ignorance again here. There is an old debate--I think from the 80s, perhapse 90s--between Craig and an atheist WHERE THIS VERY SAME ISSUE was brought up, and it was explained to Craig in excruciating detail that atheists ARE NOT MAKING A CLAIM! Yet he returns to again and again! He's just trying to fool ignorant people into thinking that is what atheism is--a claim.

[creativebollocks]

Will Craig cant even understandt the concept of atheism. He wants atheists to prove that god doesnt exist. Preposterous.

[dmn22]

@creativebollocks you can't make a positive statement about something and then not give an argument for it. Hitchens isn't on the fence about God, he believes there is no god, but where is his argument against it? he doesn't have one.

[alperduru]

@dmn22 Recall Hitchens' rely. I cannot prove Santa Clause does not exist. Would you say it is reasonable to believe in Santa Clause simply because it cannot be proven that he does not exist?

[dmn22]

@alperduru Don't you think its quite telling that kids grow up and drop the belief about santa, but some grow up and adopt a belief about God. If Santa existed, we wouldn't buy presents for our kids. Houses without chimneys wouldn't receive presents. We would've discovered his factory at the North Pole. You don't have to give an argument for Santa because there's just no good reason to think Santa exists. The arguments by Bill are based on what we do know, not what we don't know.

[alperduru]

@dmn22 "You don't have to give an argument for Santa because there's just no good reason to think Santa exists." EXACTLY. If there are no good reasons to believe in something, you don't have to be able to disprove it to not believe in it. That is what atheism is: there are no good reasons to believe in the God of the Bible. Hitchens refuted all Craig's arguments and more and that's all that's necessary for atheism. Craig is intellectually dishonest in sayin Hitchens has prove God does not exist.

[Theism411]

@alperduru There is no good reason to be an atheist. If you claim there is no God and that is what positive atheism is then you must provide evidence and arguments for your claim. If you can't provide arguments and reasons for positive atheism then your claim is based on blind faith. If you're a weak atheist then you don't object to a positive claim for God and can't make claims that a belief in God is false.

[alperduru]

@Theism411 If I got you correct, you say, even though there are no good reasons to believe in something, you still have to be able disprove it first to not believe in it? I assume this applies to not only God of the Bible but generally applicable, say reincarnation? The way you phrase your sentences is precisely the way my grandfather used to. cannot be coincidental. You are the reincarnated soul of my grandfather. Don't tell me I have to come up with convincing reasons unless you disprove me

[Theism411]

@alperduru Then you misunderstood me. I simply said when you make a TRUTH CLAIM such as THERE IS NO GOD then you need to have EVIDENCE and ARGUMENTS to back up your TRUTH CLAIM. Positive Atheism makes a truth claim that there is no God. Atheism also claims that all religions are false and by defacto atheism must be true.

It's like I make a claim that there is no money in that piggy bank. Is it my responsibility to convince you or is yours to prove me wrong? I hope you understand now.

[alperduru]

@Theism411 Sorry but I am not sure if I get you. Are you an agnostic about that my grandfather reincarnated in you or do you POSITIVELY say I am wrong and you don't have my grandfather's soul? Which is the case?

[Theism411]

@alperduru I do say I'm not your daddy or your grandpa. The concept you're lacking here is that you made a "truth claim" that essentially hasn't been "proven" true because you provided weak circumstancial evidence. In fact you make no truth claim because your claim has no merits, no reasons for being true. Since you made a false claim, I don't need to refute you with any true claims of my own. I can make claims but in this case no counter claims are needed for your false claim.

[alperduru]

@Theism411 I have been reading your comments for the last half an hour. The striking resemblance between you and my grandfather suggests that you must be the reincarnation of my grandfather. I am making a TRUTH CLAIM: You carry my grandfather's soul(theist position). You are also making a TRUTH CLAIM: You don't have my grandfather's soul simply because there is no convincing evidence(atheist position). Is it me or you to prove their claim?

[Theism411]

@alperduru You're not making a truth claim because the evidence you provided is weak and completely circumstantial. The evidence you provided for your claim is so weak it's not even worth taking into consideration. Since your claim is most certainly false I don't have to make a counter claim of my own.. I could if I felt like it but it's a waste of time because this particular thread is silly and a diversion by a desperate atheist (dodge).

[alperduru]

@Theism411 The question I am asking is whether you are an a-reincarnationist (or whatever it is called), someone who POSITIVELY claims all reincarnation stories are myths, or you are an agnostic about reincarnation? Your logic says you should at least be an agnostic because reincarnation cannot be refuted and hence there is technically a possibility that it happens. You might possibly have my grandfather's soul. Did I get you right? a very simple question, my friend, please answer.

[Theism411]

@alperduru I could really care less about reincarnation but for the sake of your argument I will answer it. I do believe in reincarnation because I study Near Death Experience accounts and read some material about reincarnation cases. That's where I get my evidence if you don't believe I don't care and we can move on to the greater debate at hand which is God, Theism and Atheism and where the burden of proof lays within.

[Theism411]

@alperduru I could really care less about reincarnation but for the sake of your argument I will answer it. I do believe in reincarnation because I study Near Death Experience accounts and read some material about reincarnation cases. That's where I get my evidence if you don't believe I don't care and we can move on to the greater debate at hand which is God, Theism and Atheism and where the burden of proof lays within.

[AD6043]

@Theism411 just surprised to hear that some christians believe in reincarnation. was thinking that it contradicts with the christian doctrine. wondering if you guys also believe in things like alien abduction, fortune telling, ghosts, ... Craig believes in magic, forces of darkness, pigs with demons in them, ... you believe in that stuff, too? after all, there is no way of proving they don't exist but i am pretty sure Craig is delusional. what do you think?

[robvlob]

@Theism411 And you have proof its a false claim I believe its to be true therefore we have an ad populum to back our claim

[salukialan]

William Lane Craig is one of the most annoying bigots alive. The Hitch is the man.

[mcdinkity]

william lane craig is a deluded nutjob

[bbiermanster]

@mcdinkity - That's not an argument.

[jamaicanification]

@mcdinkity hitchens is a deluded nutjob? saying he's deluded just because hes christian is quite an arrogant statement......

[ShAdOwChAnNeL1]

@mcdinkity Hey man, I half agree with you. I'm an Anti-Theist, but.

I dont recon hes a nut job, I'm sure youl agree hes alot better than the crack pots Hitch usually debates.

[mcdinkity]

@ShAdOwChAnNeL1 i just cant understand why a guy who seems intelligent can believe any of the religions they are all obviously man made myths but he does make a good argument on there being some type of god or creator even though i dont think he is right