life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong, if we had "inalienable rights" because of God, do you think that would have happened only in this short time of history, in the last, 30 years of the US? And was God ignoring us, and our inalienable rights, (and those of blacks, women, etc, until this very moment in time?
Ah yes, WLC, the master of the argument from consequence: "Atheism can't be true, because I don't like the idea of my own annhiliation." Ladies and gentlemen, the champion of Christian apologetics. If he was really so smart, he would never have dared to share a stage with Chrisopher Hitchens, who rightly called him out on his wish-thinking.
William Lane Craig is a good debater but a poor thinker.We create meaning in our own lives.If you need a man in the sky to give your life meaning then you are a simpleton.
I claimed an anonymous, and anonymous atheists. I claimed i saw them. Don't tell me i'm "Backpeddling" just because you lack the ability to read and i won't let you add more onto what i say. If you get me wrong i WILL call you out. But it's YOU who bothered me. After i said "I see a lot of atheists bashing but not many breaking his arguments" You came and said "Not true" and said people do it all the time. This does not change the fact i've seen a lot of atheists doing what i've claimed to.
So you did, much like Craig claims he has an "experience" he expects us to take seriously somehow. Of course, the occurrence of atheists is much more believable than having a god visit you personally to give you an unverifiable "experience", but I digress.
"This does not change the fact i've seen a lot of atheists doing what i've claimed to."
What do I see? A lot of huff'n 'n puff'n, but nothing to show for it. Label me unimpressed.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Again, on the internet. You can't give anything that cannot be faked here.
"What do I see? A lot of huff'n 'n puff'n, but nothing to show for it. Label me unimpressed."
When did i challenge you? When did i puff up or huff up at you? When i claimed a personal experience? Something i cannot give you proof for over the internet? Label me saddened by you.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Awe i bore you? Or is it you just can't give an example of me huffing and puffing at you and don't want to look like a fool? I guess we'll never know since i bore you to tears, don't wanna get your keyboard wet.
It's funny, i see a lot of people bashing on craig. But almost no one attempting to break his arguments, it's like they're saying "He's christian? Ha-Ha, moron" and ignore everything he says. I've also tend to notice people who bash on his arguments actually don't understand them very well. And people rarely even correct them. I just find that funny. People, you realize he has a website where you CAN challenge him right? If you honestly think you're smarter than those in the debate, debate him.
@narutardtedr AGREED. this video clearly shows Craig making a fool of Hitchens. It's so bad that Hitchens has to resort to the "I don't want people to tell me what to do" statement. As it's been said, if God doesn't exist then all is permissible. The reality is that as the Bible says, all men know God.....some just choose to reject Him. They choose to reject his existence because to them that justifies doing whatever they want with complete liberty from potential reward or punishment
Of course not. There are other people you have to deal with, and they won't permit you to do all you please. It's curious though how those people who "reject god" still live in societies with rules.
"with complete liberty from potential reward or punishment"
If you claim atheists actually know god exists, why would they reject it? They'd be punished anyway. What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.
@MomoTheBellyDancer why won't they let me do as i please? what is forcing them to create a standard that deems certain actions as permissible and others nopermissible? where does that standard come from?
"what is forcing them to create a standard that deems certain actions as permissible and others nopermissible? "
It's called the need to form societies.
Besides, how would the morality of a lone, omnipotent, supernatural entity be fit for some primates scurrying around on a tiny rock orbiting an insignificant star?
@MomoTheBellyDancer why is there a need to form societies? these "scurrying primates" you refer to, i assume are humans. humans were made in the image of God. of course they would find the moral nature of God attractive.
If our ancestors hadn't felt the need to do that, the human species would have died out a long time ago. We're here, so obviously it worked.
"humans were made in the image of God."
How so? Human beings are NOT lone, independent, supernatural and omnipotent beings. They are vulnerable beings that need each other in order to survive. Whatever image could you be speaking of?
@MomoTheBellyDancer can you elaborate as to how evolution is the cause for the creation of communal societies? we "need" each other to survive? socialization is a constant throughout all cultures...it's the mechanism by which culture is transported through generations but is doesn't explain why cultures are the way they are. the image of God i speak of is the not just physical but metaphysical. God is not an ape...the apes to humans theory is just that...unproven theory
"how evolution is the cause for the creation of communal societies?"
Human beings evolved as social animals.
"we "need" each other to survive?"
We lack sharp claws, huge teeth or the ability to climb, fly, swim or run extremely fast. What we do have is our social capabilities and our intellect (which are rather intertwined).
"is doesn't explain why cultures are the way they are."
Of course it does, considering how the basic template is the same for every culture.
"the image of God i speak of is the not just physical but metaphysical."
In other words: it's abstract and thus devoid of any meaning in any practical sense.
"God is not an ape"
So how would he presume that HIS morality would fit us, who ARE apes? It's worse with the Biblical version of this god, who acts selfish, tyrannical and without regard for the well-being of his creation.
"unproven theory"
Examine the anatomy of chimps, then that of humans. See how they match.
"i see a lot of people bashing on craig. But almost no one attempting to break his arguments"
That's totally untrue. Craig's sorry excuses for arguments are dismantled all the time. Just probe around YouTube, and you will see many videos in which that is done.
"people who bash on his arguments actually don't understand them very well"
Actually, Craig gets a lot of flak from scientists and other philosophers, especially philosophers of science, like Dennett.
@MomoTheBellyDancer I've seen debunking arguments on both sides of debaters. It's nothing new, there is no such thing as a "Perfect" argument. I knew from the beginning of his argument there would and could be holes, but this isn't about them. It's about how people bash without giving reasons for it.
Secondly, all "Philosophers" get flak. Hitchens is no acception , again there is no "Perfect" argument. And a person who is better rounded in said field will be out spoken.
That's not true either. The reason people bash Craig is because he's deceitful, stubborn and generally not above trickery to try to gain points during a debate. Craig is an apologist, first and foremost.
"all "Philosophers" get flak"
But rarely does a philosopher get shot down so badly as Craig.
Anyway, your claim that Craig's opponents don't address his arguments or fail to understand them is demonstrably wrong.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig's opponents don't address his arguments or fail to understand them is demonstrably wrong." I'm not referring to everyone of his opponents as you so make it out to be. I've talked about a specific percentage, not everyone.
Debates are mostly a spectacle for onlookers. You don't arrive at truths or even new ideas through them. Craig is case in point: he never listens to his opponents, and when cornered, he will simply start juggling with the meaning of words so it seems he has made a point after all.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're telling me things i already know. However, the "Juggling" can be said for many non-theist and even non-religion oriented debates and debaters. This kind of stuff is normal in debate rings. Now it doesn't change the fact that many of the people bashing him don't understand his arguments, and that there is a tendency for misunderstanding. Even some "Debunking" arguments have their flaws.
"the "Juggling" can be said for many non-theist and even non-religion oriented debates and debaters. "
Craig tends to hold long speeches about things he show the existence of his god, and when drilled about it will make a full turn by stating that he knows that his arguments "don't prove God exists". If so, then why is he wasting everybody's time?
"many of the people bashing him don't understand his arguments"
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig tends to hold long speeches" Kinda like how you went into a long speech about the specifics of his juggling, which i already stated happens and is just a normality of debates?
"For instance ...?"
Zeno. A person i debated in an online chat, along with 24 others. If you have used that arguments it's pretty good, though it's worth noting that i do state it differently than him.
No, it's not normal to hold long-winded speeches, just to admit later that they added nothing to the debate. It's lame and a waste of time.
"A person i debated in an online chat"
How about a person that can actually be verified? You should also realize that Craig's claims can already be nullified by pointing out that he provides NO EVIDENCE for them whatsoever.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "At least I made a point." Still, it wasn't needed really. I got your point the first time.
"No, it's not normal to hold long-winded speeches, just to admit later that they added nothing to the debate. It's lame and a waste of time." Are we talking about juggling or specific craig dealings?
On the internet? Anything i give you that can be used to "verify" can be faked. So sorry i can't, and i do offer evidence or at least examples with my arguments
@MomoTheBellyDancer You asked for something i can't give you given the fact of the internet nothing is certain. You wasted your own time, bothering me with information i already knew and didn't care for. Challenging me to give proof for my personal interne experience. MY personal experience with people and what i've said. Honestly if anything, you wasted my time. Common sense would say "Yes i guess there are some people who don't understand" i did point "Many" not "Most"
"You wasted your own time, bothering me with information i already knew and didn't care for"
YOU started claiming that you know people who attack Craig without understanding his arguments. Don't pull a "Craig" on me now by back-pedaling once you get called out on what you say.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "YOU started claiming that you know people" Don't misquote me d-bag. Those words never came from me. I made a claim i SEEN "Many" atheists bashing and without being able to give good arguments for it, and that the ones who do TEND to not understand it themselves. NEVER did i claim i knew someone. YOU asked for a name, i gave a name of a person i debated. You like to make up BS don't you? You do it alot.
@MomoTheBellyDancer "So all in all you mention ONE person. Whoop-de-do. Why not try to address someone's arguments here on YouTube?"
A: I have a life.
And
B: I don't go around looking for people's arguments do debunk other arguments. The counter-argument comes to me when i meet someone who knows one. If you wanna find one of these people yourself, then why don't you look? You're the one who seems to have a hard time believing a person can misunderstand this.
Craig certainly is the foremost Christian apologist, which makes it all the more satisfying for atheists and simultaneously painful for theists to have his errors, logical flaws, irrational arguments and overall dunderheadedness pointed out again and again. It's quite sad really.
In a nutshell, Craig only cares about his faith, he has admitted as much, and all the noise he makes about logical arguments is just a smoke screen to comfort other Christians.
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMAO
“William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists … and see clearly what … is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!”
“William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists … and see clearly what … is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!”
@hummingbird830 not evil ! i can respond .the hitch god was famous for trashing what he did not understand , as well as the people surrounding those things .
as you are a hitch god follower you should be accepting of my comment .
@pearsc5d What part of me claiming you to be evil denotes that I am a Hitch follower? To be honest Hitch did understand religion, the many faults in the bible and how dreadfully misguided some Christians can be. How is that evil? He wished death on no one.
He failed to see the existence of God, which was fair enough. Each to his own.
On a side note I suggest you obtain sensible punctuation and stop using exclamation marks. It makes you look like you're laughing at your own joke.
And if god gives us morals... then why are pirests raping boys, why are they not allowing the use of condoms in aids ridden countries, why are religious people slaughtering others just because they are different? it is because of religion that homosexuals are PUBLICLY HUNG in iran, because of religion that 'witches' are BURNED ALIVE in africa, because of religion that apostacy is punished by PUBLIC BEHEADING in saudi arabia.
okay, firstly who is a believer to tell me the purpose of my life? your purpose is what you make it out to be, secondly, while there are people who genuinly care about the lives of unborn babies, there are those who murder abortion doctors for because of their job... they care about you sooo much... untill you are born that is, then you can fuck right of because this unborn without any awareness of its own existance is more important than you.
Only in your feverish imagination. All Craig does is regurgitate the same old dogmatic nonsense that he has been peddling for decades. He's not in it to get nearer to any truth. He's in it in an effort to score points and make a buck off the gullible. This is in stark contrast with Hitchens, who wants the audience members to think and to come up with their own conclusions.
I am always amazed at how deluded one must be to believe that. Craig has never won a single debate in his life, although is very skilled at spinning his losses into wins AFTER the fact.
Either God created the universe, or the universe created itself. I find the idea that something can create itself to be obviously absurd. Nothing comes from nothing.
"Either God created the universe, or the universe created itself."
False dichotomy.
"I find the idea that something can create itself to be obviously absurd"
Well, the problem can be stated as such: why is there something instead of nothing? You claim that a god did it. Fine, but then why is there a GOD instead of nothing?
Positing a god doesn't answer any questions; it merely pushes the problem one step further.
"Christianity offers eternal happiness that begins now. Atheism can only offer doubt, skepticism, a miserable end, and eternal death." (from Death - Something to Think About)
Athiest aren't any more Intelligent then the religious, they just think they are.They aren't interested in anything that they cant understand and if most christian's understand science and the teaching's of god i would say we have the upper hand(that of course is excluding the majority of believers opposed to the number of athiest in the world).All an athiest will do say where's the proof,then ridicule and discredit the bible which i might add is a collection of 66 book's(KJV).
@riverstory87 Science isn't reliable it's just something that they can use to rationalize an irrational world.Here is an example "Carbon Dating" is a scientific method of proving how old something is,well just to see how accurate this method was they took a fifty year old coke can and tested it only to discover it to be the oldest coke can in history. 50,000 years is how long carbon dating SCIENCE proved that coke can to have resided on this earth.....GET REAL PEOPLE.
@riverstory87 They say the universe was created by gases gathering and creating stars and then becoming supernova etc...I'm not disputing those argument's at all i'm stating that if you cant tell me where it all came from in the first place then don't act more intelligent then us because your not we have the same amount of knowledge as you do we just believe in a creator not a random group of event's.
@riverstory87 Athiest feel that if they talk louder and get the last word in that they have won there argument which is a falsehood,religious people just have enough sense to see that some argument's cant be won(on either side)and act as adult's should.Atheism is a road that leads to immorality and licentiousness,When sin isn't governed the spirit become's a disease,which athiest don't believe in sin of course i mean why would they, law's laid into place by an intelligent designer, insanity lol
@riverstory87 Religious people just have enough sense?
Definition of a religious person is someone who will take a proposition at face value based on no evidence at all. i.e. Faith based beliefs. Therefore to entrust the integrity of any argument to such people is a contradiction of terms. So, i'm sorry.....No.
@Dgoosh1000 Your post is very hypocritical,you have no proof for what you believe.The argument's of atheist are weak so instead of proving point's you take stab's at the moral foundation of religion.Then try to stay on the offensive leaving religious debaters defending themselves the entire time as to keep attention away from the FACT that you have no substantial evidence to prove your argument's and in a way that's faith as well and go ahead be dismissive it's the only thing atheist are good at
@Dgoosh1000 Wow you must be one of them expert's at name calling lol Your inability to control your frustration over a simple conversation prove's that atheist have no morals.You see name calling and negative ridicule are the cause of countless lives look at columbine for instance.That inability to control a negative emotion is a distant cousin to an inability to control evil look at the holocaust.
@riverstory87 ."You see name calling and negative ridicule are the cause of countless lives look at columbine"
Are the cause?
A definite statement based on nothing at all.
There comes a point when what someone says is self discrediting and you have reached that point. In the face of the evidence presented, the anonymous person reading these past few posts can draw only one conclusion.
Thanks, your inane postulations and blusterings have done all my work for me.
@Dgoosh1000 Indubiously i say unto you my fine postulated unequivocally challenged counterpoint.The fidelity of your statement's are void of truth and lean towards an ambiguous foundation.You see what ive done just know is called wordplay and it doesnt mean anything its just a way to make the crowd believe you are smarter then what you are when really you are merely dodging the answers and punching wholes in theory's and starting entirely new argument's to get the view off of what you dont know
@riverstory87 We'll you have just done what your accusing me of doing.
So... I dunno, it's now become embarrassing to read what you think is relevant or comprehend-able. If you read your first post directed towards me you make all kinds of attacks on the nature of the objection I made completely ignoring the objection itself.
I was going to let it pass but now you've started the negative game your going to find yourself stuck.
"Athiest feel that if they talk louder and get the last word in that they have won"
This is a clear case of projection, since it's most often the religious people who do this.
"Atheism is a road that leads to immorality and licentiousness"
And this is nothing but the same ol' "slippery slope" argument: "Non-belief leads to moral decay!" It's total hogwash, as demonstrated by many secular societies which do just fine.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Animal's have no moral's if one kill's the other there isn't hurt feeling's, it's nature. If we were animal's like atheist believe then why do we feel sorrow and anguish in the face of thing's like murder and rape?It's an atheistic propaganda or in your word's "total hogwash"
"Animal's have no moral's if one kill's the other there isn't hurt feeling's, it's nature"
That's nonsense. Elephants grieve over their deceased, for one. Chimpanzees are also shown to have empathy for other chimpanzees. Sympathy and empathy are qualities of ALL social mammals.
"why do we feel sorrow and anguish in the face of thing's like murder and rape?"
@MomoTheBellyDancer What about rape great white sharks take the female by force is that rape no it is not just as dogs do it and every other animal out there its an act of nature but if we do it it is morally wrong and morals come from god
@riverstory87 What is this...I dont even, Sharks and Dogs act on instinct and lives by it. But we have something called consciousness which evolves with age, if you throw away a ball a dog will blindly chase it without questioning it, because it acts on instinct.
@EczilaSF I"m talking about moral's not consciousness,Without moral's then you would be acting like an animal.Say everybody just stopped living with morals,children stopped being taught how to act,eventually over time murder well wouldn't be called that anymore, rape would just be the pursuit to continue the cycle.We would regress just look at some of the third world country's out there it's kill or be killed not because of poverty but because of weak moral value
@EczilaSF The indian's didn't have bottled or running water, canned food's, paved street's or a sense of moral value and look how they acted the pioneer's called them savage's.You cant honestly say they weren't as evolved as the rest of the world either because they had been around just as long as every one else.They hadn't been taught about god yet and that's what god does,he ground's you morally.
@riverstory87 the pioneers called the indians savages because they didn't have god? well 1. they did have their own gods and 2. they called the indians savages and then went on to enslave and massacre them, if anyone were the savages it was the pioneers, is this what god taught them?
@riverstory87 And you should be more critical against History, History is always written by the winners. The people who called them savages also enslaved millions of people.
@MomoTheBellyDancer The universe was created from negative unseen energy. Funny the bible says the very same thing :P
You realize of course much of today's sciences are riding the coattails of thos who CAME UP with science, be it math, chemistry, electromagnatism, aerodynamics and flight etc (All were Judeo/CHristians/Muslims)
Newton one big example, where would our science be without his biblical inspiration?
there IS science in the bible, for those who understand
@MomoTheBellyDancer And the simple fact that everything (even sentience is largely determined by the endocrine system and to some extent DNA, eg DRD4) can be explained with MATH. Eg when our computers are powerful enough, we will be able to make complete sense of weather and be able to calculate all the variables.
This shows that there was design behind it all. The only things that are unpredictable are that which we have not fully understood yet.
Do not serve me, be my friend. If you choose not to be my friend...no problem,you have free will that my father has given to you. I will just choose to burn you forever.
Craig has no right to tell us atheists if our life has a meaning or not, or if this meaning is an illusion. I know the meaning of my life for I have decided that I should dedicate my life to the foreign languages. I know I could not be happy speaking only French and English, I need more. And he has zero right to tell my this is a delusion. I make my own purpose in life.
Craig seems like a very nice guy overall and seems to be very articulate in the field of philosophy. I just think he is wrong in regards to the existance of a supernatural being. I personally don't care if there is an objective purpose for us. I as many others, enjoy life and care for my friends and family because I enjoy seeing them happy. I fail to see how a god is relevant as to whether or not life has meaning
@muslimgiga Craig is very good at sounding smart and using a lot of scientific/philosophical words to try and emphasize his points, but most of his arguments have no footing. He's very situational and hypothetical and what he says doesn't always relate to what religion actually is, or has done. Hitchens on the other hand keeps everything relevant and brings up real issues, backed by real evidence. Craig is the one who gets spanked.
@490310001 Hitchens is the same. He can't argue with logical coherence and just "dismisses" everything if it sound "irrational" to him. That's not being an academic. That's just being a scumbag. Notice how Craig respects Hitchen's "OUTSTANDING"(lol) prepositions and tries to maintain coherency. Hitchens is all over the place.
@muslimgiga I would agree and I wish Hitchens would answer the question no matter how irrational it may be, but not answering a question does not reflect poor debating skills. Especially when he probably does get a lot of very poor questions, or questions he has already answered earlier in the debate. Craig thinks he's answering Hitchens' questions but in reality he is answering with hypotheticals. Craig's points only make sense if you adopt his religious perspective
@muslimgiga That's your opinion surrounded by what you perceive in your own ways. I'm pretty confident that Craigs arguments are foundless, even down to to his magical story about the empty tomb which happens to be written in story book form. His morality argument fails like this: (im using evidence here) meaning comes from sentient minds, I think everyone can agree with that. We have sentient minds, god granting life meaning makes no sense and needing a god to punish or reward is just like
@muslimgiga is just like a child needing his mom or dad to watch him play with his friends in the sandbox. It is absolutely childish for him to keep bringing this up everytime; he tries to have it both ways. he says atheists are just as moral, then he says that atheists have no meaning in life, as if he speaks for them, or as if they need ANOTHER sentient being to observe meaning for them. God, to me, is an absolute tack-on. That's why the razor cuts him off. He just stands for adjectives.:
Nothing is ever created. Things in the natural universe at a fundemental level only transform from pattern to pattern. Whatever existed before the big bang existed as something else possibly following a different set of physical laws.
Dr.William Lane Craig is my hero!!! u can't beat a philosopher dumbass and GOD exists wether u choose to believe or not, and see u all in judgement day!!
@shoussam Would you care to discuss his arguments ?He Even negates the cosmological argument himself so I doubt you'd care to debate this one. Unless you'd care to talk about how ridiculous it is for him to use a failed argument
@shoussam WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion
@shoussam WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!.
@shoussam WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity. "
@shoussam WLC continued ". I don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
@shoussam Word for word out of WLC's mouth. the Cosmological Argument refuted by Craig himself. apparently he doesn't mind substituting Common sense and intuition for logic reason and evidence
@emailpobox666 Thanx for ur energy lol btw, u still didnt disprove the existence of GOD, which is a matter of choise, so according to Pascal's wager, i'd rather choose to give my life a purpose than live like im in a free fall without any purpose, and dont even start with living a fullfilling life bullshit, wanna give urself a reason to do all kinds of animal sh*t, go and do it, and stop feeling bad abt urself, if u're a true atheist, u wldnt even give a f*ck abt this debate....
@emailpobox666 ...trying to prove urself right, u're wasting ur life time, btw u shld know that Dawkins sold about 3mill copies of his delusional "God's delusion" what're u doing? backing him up on youtube? lol maybe he did it for the money and at least he got sth out of it, what u got?? wasting ur life on youtube and then go to hell, a question that u shld always keep in mind is : what if im wrong? and btw it's Hitchen who keeps dodging Craig's arguments, hedirectlymovestoanotherquestion
Isn't it funny the world and belief in God is supposed to make the world beautiful and if it becomes atheist it will dark and dead? Hmmm most of the world believes in God and it doesn't seem the belief in God has made it a very happy planet. Take a look at our planet
I love how Hitchens has no answer to the question. He just babbles and dodges and never gives a concrete answer. Craig destroyes all Atheists in the Debates.
@jonnyneo53 Craig uses the same 5 failed arguments over and over. Why should Hitchens argue against them . Should Hitchens be required to prove the earth is round.
@emailpobox666 Because no Dawkins or Atkins or this fat bastard can answer to the question without giving another question!!! 5 simple arguments are enough to make them look like fools, because those so called modern darwinists arent that bright actually, they're just good at confusing, dodging questions with other questions, but they never disproved the existence of GOD, If u can't prove it, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist" ;=)
@shoussam No atheist n debates save for Quentin Smith put themselves down to Craig's level. It's obvious that you believe what you will on the basis of faith which is acceptable. When you try to cloak it in a thin veil off logic and reason is when I have a problem.You apparently don't mind wasting your time on youtube defending Craig
@emailpobox666 I just come when i find a response to my comments, and who cares about time, as long as i know where im going, unlike you, ur life will end by the time u're dead lol which is not true but anyway, i find it funny and contradictory how atheists give a sh*t in what other people believe or dont, i mean if u're sure about ur decision or choise, why wld u bother who's right or wrong ? just live ur life peacefully until u're dead, or ur life is soemptyandlonelyuwanttotakepeopledownwithu?
@shoussam Both our lives end when we die you just delude yourself to thinking otherwise. If religion had a positive effect on society it wouldn't matter to us but as it stands all the studies that have been done show a correlation. The more religious a society the more social problems like abortion teen pregnancy homicide etc etc
@shoussam btw, now u skipped Dawkins and hitchens to the retard Smith lol did u even watch the debate??? It's obvious that you believe what you will on the basis of choosing not to believe which is acceptable.
@shoussam Smith is the one philosopher who knocks Craig down on his ass. He is not the most articulate one of the group but his logic is unquestionable
@shoussam That must be a real kick in the ass for you that Smith has defeated Craig over and over. I believe in logic and reason not wishful thinking superstition
@emailpobox666 U're just believing what u want to believe, saying that smith won, doesnt mean u will change reality, anyone who watched the video knows whats up, so just calm down, i bet it will a real kick in ur balls to live on believing that ur life ends by death when u wake up somewhere else wondering wtf is happening!!! see u on the other side lol
@shoussam WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion. "
@shoussam WLC Continued ". The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
@shoussam Craig's top argument for god's existence reduced to him arguing that common sense and intuition should override philosophical theories/ideas
@pplus0440 These where my objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible with omni-benevolence.
@pplus0440 WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
@pplus0440 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories" Quentin Smith Vs Craig 1996
@emailpobox666 No other animal seeks to explain its existence. It is here to exist and to keep the species going but it doesn't worry about it. It doesn't justify it. It just is what it is. And the morality issue? How religions dare to suggest that their morality is the ideal is an outrage. Justify as they will, the Abrahamic religions are flawed and sick. I want no part of their morality.
@Oilisdeathtomany "No other animal seeks to explain its existence" That is an assumption we don't know this to be true. Morality imposed by an imaginary god is less than worthless while a morality developed over 100,000 years of civilization is to be admired. I assume you to be Christian . Yahweh is far from a moral authority
@emailpobox666 Assume away. Either you struggle with basic comprehension, or did you not actually read my post? We are animals and I struggle to comprehend why anyone thinks we're exceptional when it has been clearly demonstrated that humans are just high functioning primates.
life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong, if we had "inalienable rights" because of God, do you think that would have happened only in this short time of history, in the last, 30 years of the US? And was God ignoring us, and our inalienable rights, (and those of blacks, women, etc, until this very moment in time?
wizardoflawz 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong
wizardoflawz 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong
wizardoflawz 16 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong
wizardoflawz 16 hours ago
life is absurd. so trying to explain why it isnt is all wrong
wizardoflawz 16 hours ago
Ah yes, WLC, the master of the argument from consequence: "Atheism can't be true, because I don't like the idea of my own annhiliation." Ladies and gentlemen, the champion of Christian apologetics. If he was really so smart, he would never have dared to share a stage with Chrisopher Hitchens, who rightly called him out on his wish-thinking.
donquickoats 17 hours ago
William Lane Craig is a good debater but a poor thinker.We create meaning in our own lives.If you need a man in the sky to give your life meaning then you are a simpleton.
tattooism 19 hours ago
I claimed an anonymous, and anonymous atheists. I claimed i saw them. Don't tell me i'm "Backpeddling" just because you lack the ability to read and i won't let you add more onto what i say. If you get me wrong i WILL call you out. But it's YOU who bothered me. After i said "I see a lot of atheists bashing but not many breaking his arguments" You came and said "Not true" and said people do it all the time. This does not change the fact i've seen a lot of atheists doing what i've claimed to.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"I claimed i saw them. "
So you did, much like Craig claims he has an "experience" he expects us to take seriously somehow. Of course, the occurrence of atheists is much more believable than having a god visit you personally to give you an unverifiable "experience", but I digress.
"This does not change the fact i've seen a lot of atheists doing what i've claimed to."
What do I see? A lot of huff'n 'n puff'n, but nothing to show for it. Label me unimpressed.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Again, on the internet. You can't give anything that cannot be faked here.
"What do I see? A lot of huff'n 'n puff'n, but nothing to show for it. Label me unimpressed."
When did i challenge you? When did i puff up or huff up at you? When i claimed a personal experience? Something i cannot give you proof for over the internet? Label me saddened by you.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"Label me saddened by you."
You Craigbots sure are a sorry lot.
I'll leave it at that, since you bore me to tears. Have a nice day!
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Awe i bore you? Or is it you just can't give an example of me huffing and puffing at you and don't want to look like a fool? I guess we'll never know since i bore you to tears, don't wanna get your keyboard wet.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
It's funny, i see a lot of people bashing on craig. But almost no one attempting to break his arguments, it's like they're saying "He's christian? Ha-Ha, moron" and ignore everything he says. I've also tend to notice people who bash on his arguments actually don't understand them very well. And people rarely even correct them. I just find that funny. People, you realize he has a website where you CAN challenge him right? If you honestly think you're smarter than those in the debate, debate him.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr AGREED. this video clearly shows Craig making a fool of Hitchens. It's so bad that Hitchens has to resort to the "I don't want people to tell me what to do" statement. As it's been said, if God doesn't exist then all is permissible. The reality is that as the Bible says, all men know God.....some just choose to reject Him. They choose to reject his existence because to them that justifies doing whatever they want with complete liberty from potential reward or punishment
bswearer 1 day ago
@bswearer
"if God doesn't exist then all is permissible."
Of course not. There are other people you have to deal with, and they won't permit you to do all you please. It's curious though how those people who "reject god" still live in societies with rules.
"with complete liberty from potential reward or punishment"
If you claim atheists actually know god exists, why would they reject it? They'd be punished anyway. What you're saying doesn't make any sense at all.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer why won't they let me do as i please? what is forcing them to create a standard that deems certain actions as permissible and others nopermissible? where does that standard come from?
bswearer 23 hours ago
@bswearer
"what is forcing them to create a standard that deems certain actions as permissible and others nopermissible? "
It's called the need to form societies.
Besides, how would the morality of a lone, omnipotent, supernatural entity be fit for some primates scurrying around on a tiny rock orbiting an insignificant star?
MomoTheBellyDancer 22 hours ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer why is there a need to form societies? these "scurrying primates" you refer to, i assume are humans. humans were made in the image of God. of course they would find the moral nature of God attractive.
bswearer 18 hours ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 9 hours ago
@bswearer
"why is there a need to form societies?"
If our ancestors hadn't felt the need to do that, the human species would have died out a long time ago. We're here, so obviously it worked.
"humans were made in the image of God."
How so? Human beings are NOT lone, independent, supernatural and omnipotent beings. They are vulnerable beings that need each other in order to survive. Whatever image could you be speaking of?
MomoTheBellyDancer 9 hours ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer can you elaborate as to how evolution is the cause for the creation of communal societies? we "need" each other to survive? socialization is a constant throughout all cultures...it's the mechanism by which culture is transported through generations but is doesn't explain why cultures are the way they are. the image of God i speak of is the not just physical but metaphysical. God is not an ape...the apes to humans theory is just that...unproven theory
bswearer 8 hours ago
@bswearer
"how evolution is the cause for the creation of communal societies?"
Human beings evolved as social animals.
"we "need" each other to survive?"
We lack sharp claws, huge teeth or the ability to climb, fly, swim or run extremely fast. What we do have is our social capabilities and our intellect (which are rather intertwined).
"is doesn't explain why cultures are the way they are."
Of course it does, considering how the basic template is the same for every culture.
MomoTheBellyDancer 8 hours ago
@bswearer
"the image of God i speak of is the not just physical but metaphysical."
In other words: it's abstract and thus devoid of any meaning in any practical sense.
"God is not an ape"
So how would he presume that HIS morality would fit us, who ARE apes? It's worse with the Biblical version of this god, who acts selfish, tyrannical and without regard for the well-being of his creation.
"unproven theory"
Examine the anatomy of chimps, then that of humans. See how they match.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 hours ago
@narutardtedr
"i see a lot of people bashing on craig. But almost no one attempting to break his arguments"
That's totally untrue. Craig's sorry excuses for arguments are dismantled all the time. Just probe around YouTube, and you will see many videos in which that is done.
"people who bash on his arguments actually don't understand them very well"
Actually, Craig gets a lot of flak from scientists and other philosophers, especially philosophers of science, like Dennett.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I've seen debunking arguments on both sides of debaters. It's nothing new, there is no such thing as a "Perfect" argument. I knew from the beginning of his argument there would and could be holes, but this isn't about them. It's about how people bash without giving reasons for it.
Secondly, all "Philosophers" get flak. Hitchens is no acception , again there is no "Perfect" argument. And a person who is better rounded in said field will be out spoken.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"people bash without giving reasons for it."
That's not true either. The reason people bash Craig is because he's deceitful, stubborn and generally not above trickery to try to gain points during a debate. Craig is an apologist, first and foremost.
"all "Philosophers" get flak"
But rarely does a philosopher get shot down so badly as Craig.
Anyway, your claim that Craig's opponents don't address his arguments or fail to understand them is demonstrably wrong.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig's opponents don't address his arguments or fail to understand them is demonstrably wrong." I'm not referring to everyone of his opponents as you so make it out to be. I've talked about a specific percentage, not everyone.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"debate him."
Debates are mostly a spectacle for onlookers. You don't arrive at truths or even new ideas through them. Craig is case in point: he never listens to his opponents, and when cornered, he will simply start juggling with the meaning of words so it seems he has made a point after all.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You're telling me things i already know. However, the "Juggling" can be said for many non-theist and even non-religion oriented debates and debaters. This kind of stuff is normal in debate rings. Now it doesn't change the fact that many of the people bashing him don't understand his arguments, and that there is a tendency for misunderstanding. Even some "Debunking" arguments have their flaws.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"the "Juggling" can be said for many non-theist and even non-religion oriented debates and debaters. "
Craig tends to hold long speeches about things he show the existence of his god, and when drilled about it will make a full turn by stating that he knows that his arguments "don't prove God exists". If so, then why is he wasting everybody's time?
"many of the people bashing him don't understand his arguments"
For instance ...?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Craig tends to hold long speeches" Kinda like how you went into a long speech about the specifics of his juggling, which i already stated happens and is just a normality of debates?
"For instance ...?"
Zeno. A person i debated in an online chat, along with 24 others. If you have used that arguments it's pretty good, though it's worth noting that i do state it differently than him.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"you went into a long speech"
At least I made a point.
"just a normality of debates"
No, it's not normal to hold long-winded speeches, just to admit later that they added nothing to the debate. It's lame and a waste of time.
"A person i debated in an online chat"
How about a person that can actually be verified? You should also realize that Craig's claims can already be nullified by pointing out that he provides NO EVIDENCE for them whatsoever.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "At least I made a point." Still, it wasn't needed really. I got your point the first time.
"No, it's not normal to hold long-winded speeches, just to admit later that they added nothing to the debate. It's lame and a waste of time." Are we talking about juggling or specific craig dealings?
On the internet? Anything i give you that can be used to "verify" can be faked. So sorry i can't, and i do offer evidence or at least examples with my arguments
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"So sorry i can't"
Well, thank you for wasting my time then. You're a true follower of your master.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You asked for something i can't give you given the fact of the internet nothing is certain. You wasted your own time, bothering me with information i already knew and didn't care for. Challenging me to give proof for my personal interne experience. MY personal experience with people and what i've said. Honestly if anything, you wasted my time. Common sense would say "Yes i guess there are some people who don't understand" i did point "Many" not "Most"
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"You wasted your own time, bothering me with information i already knew and didn't care for"
YOU started claiming that you know people who attack Craig without understanding his arguments. Don't pull a "Craig" on me now by back-pedaling once you get called out on what you say.
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "YOU started claiming that you know people" Don't misquote me d-bag. Those words never came from me. I made a claim i SEEN "Many" atheists bashing and without being able to give good arguments for it, and that the ones who do TEND to not understand it themselves. NEVER did i claim i knew someone. YOU asked for a name, i gave a name of a person i debated. You like to make up BS don't you? You do it alot.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
@narutardtedr
"YOU asked for a name, i gave a name of a person i debated. "
So all in all you mention ONE person. Whoop-de-do. Why not try to address someone's arguments here on YouTube?
MomoTheBellyDancer 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MomoTheBellyDancer "So all in all you mention ONE person. Whoop-de-do. Why not try to address someone's arguments here on YouTube?"
A: I have a life.
And
B: I don't go around looking for people's arguments do debunk other arguments. The counter-argument comes to me when i meet someone who knows one. If you wanna find one of these people yourself, then why don't you look? You're the one who seems to have a hard time believing a person can misunderstand this.
narutardtedr 1 day ago
Craig certainly is the foremost Christian apologist, which makes it all the more satisfying for atheists and simultaneously painful for theists to have his errors, logical flaws, irrational arguments and overall dunderheadedness pointed out again and again. It's quite sad really.
In a nutshell, Craig only cares about his faith, he has admitted as much, and all the noise he makes about logical arguments is just a smoke screen to comfort other Christians.
@RosesTimes LOL.
TheTexanCanadian 1 day ago
Dawkins has claimed, “As for religion … nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.” Harris debated Craig on 7th April. In his opening statement in that debate, Harris declared that Dr Craig is “the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God into many of my fellow atheists.” After that debate, the atheist website Debunking Christianity reported: “Bill (Craig) has once again showed himself as the best debater of this generation.” ROFL LMAO
RosesTimes 2 days ago
“William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists … and see clearly what … is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!”
Mark Smith, Contra Craig Website
ROFL
RosesTimes 2 days ago
Comment removed
RosesTimes 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
“William Lane Craig is Christianity's #1 living apologist. Wake up, fellow Atheists … and see clearly what … is happening here. If we expect Christians to be honest about anything, we as a group need to be honest as well, and honestly face the fact that Craig is kicking our collective (butt) and we're apparently too dumb (as a group) to even know it!”
Mark Smith, Contra Craig Website
ROFL
RosesOfTimes 2 days ago
here bloody here hitch!
Frog869 3 days ago
well now that the hitch GOD is DEAD ,i am sure he knows the truth now .BAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
I AM SURE IF HE COULD COME BACK HE WOULD TELL YOU ALL HOW WRONG HE WAS ABOUT EVERYTHING .
pearsc5d 3 days ago
@pearsc5d What an evil person you are.
hummingbird830 3 days ago
@hummingbird830 not evil ! i can respond .the hitch god was famous for trashing what he did not understand , as well as the people surrounding those things .
as you are a hitch god follower you should be accepting of my comment .
SHAME ON YOU FOR BEING HYPOCRITICAL .
pearsc5d 3 days ago
@pearsc5d What part of me claiming you to be evil denotes that I am a Hitch follower? To be honest Hitch did understand religion, the many faults in the bible and how dreadfully misguided some Christians can be. How is that evil? He wished death on no one.
He failed to see the existence of God, which was fair enough. Each to his own.
On a side note I suggest you obtain sensible punctuation and stop using exclamation marks. It makes you look like you're laughing at your own joke.
hummingbird830 3 days ago
@pearsc5d LOL agreed
riverstory87 3 days ago
@pearsc5d Where do bad folks go when they die they dont go to heaven where the angels fly they go to a lake of fire and fry
riverstory87 3 days ago
@riverstory87 HEY ! your a poet . did you know it ?
pearsc5d 3 days ago
And if god gives us morals... then why are pirests raping boys, why are they not allowing the use of condoms in aids ridden countries, why are religious people slaughtering others just because they are different? it is because of religion that homosexuals are PUBLICLY HUNG in iran, because of religion that 'witches' are BURNED ALIVE in africa, because of religion that apostacy is punished by PUBLIC BEHEADING in saudi arabia.
INT3RNAL0BL33DING 4 days ago
okay, firstly who is a believer to tell me the purpose of my life? your purpose is what you make it out to be, secondly, while there are people who genuinly care about the lives of unborn babies, there are those who murder abortion doctors for because of their job... they care about you sooo much... untill you are born that is, then you can fuck right of because this unborn without any awareness of its own existance is more important than you.
INT3RNAL0BL33DING 4 days ago
Hahaha, now Hitchens misquotes Dostoevsky. Fail
Ohyewildthong 4 days ago
Hitchens tries to compare states of the soul to theme parks. Facepalm.
Ohyewildthong 4 days ago
No doubt about it.......Dr Craig is winning this one.
tnmusicman1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tnmusicman1
"Dr Craig is winning this one."
Only in your feverish imagination. All Craig does is regurgitate the same old dogmatic nonsense that he has been peddling for decades. He's not in it to get nearer to any truth. He's in it in an effort to score points and make a buck off the gullible. This is in stark contrast with Hitchens, who wants the audience members to think and to come up with their own conclusions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
William Lane Craig destroys! This debate was not even close.
jordan7787 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jordan7787
"William Lane Craig destroys!"
I am always amazed at how deluded one must be to believe that. Craig has never won a single debate in his life, although is very skilled at spinning his losses into wins AFTER the fact.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
LOL try to help others be free? How can other's be free if they are being misinformed? Either by religion or by science?
EquitesVeritatis 4 days ago
@EquitesVeritatis
"How can other's be free if they are being misinformed?"
Please point out how "science" misinforms people. Your remark is also highly ironic, seeing how Craig makes a livelihood out of lying to people.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
DO YOU KNOW WHY NIGGERS HAVE SUCH BIG LIPS???
IT'S SO THEY CAN GET THAT LAST PUFF FROM THEIR CIGARETTE
(FUN FACT OF THE DAY)
ripster8675 4 days ago
God MUST be real. Just look at that guy's water bottle at 1:10!
mario64guy 5 days ago
if we are to view others as ends, Mr Craig, why does your bible permit slavery?
BigBallaShotCalla15 5 days ago
Either God created the universe, or the universe created itself. I find the idea that something can create itself to be obviously absurd. Nothing comes from nothing.
justin10292000 5 days ago
@justin10292000
"Either God created the universe, or the universe created itself."
False dichotomy.
"I find the idea that something can create itself to be obviously absurd"
Well, the problem can be stated as such: why is there something instead of nothing? You claim that a god did it. Fine, but then why is there a GOD instead of nothing?
Positing a god doesn't answer any questions; it merely pushes the problem one step further.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Christianity offers eternal happiness that begins now. Atheism can only offer doubt, skepticism, a miserable end, and eternal death." (from Death - Something to Think About)
justin10292000 5 days ago
Athiest aren't any more Intelligent then the religious, they just think they are.They aren't interested in anything that they cant understand and if most christian's understand science and the teaching's of god i would say we have the upper hand(that of course is excluding the majority of believers opposed to the number of athiest in the world).All an athiest will do say where's the proof,then ridicule and discredit the bible which i might add is a collection of 66 book's(KJV).
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Science isn't reliable it's just something that they can use to rationalize an irrational world.Here is an example "Carbon Dating" is a scientific method of proving how old something is,well just to see how accurate this method was they took a fifty year old coke can and tested it only to discover it to be the oldest coke can in history. 50,000 years is how long carbon dating SCIENCE proved that coke can to have resided on this earth.....GET REAL PEOPLE.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 They say the universe was created by gases gathering and creating stars and then becoming supernova etc...I'm not disputing those argument's at all i'm stating that if you cant tell me where it all came from in the first place then don't act more intelligent then us because your not we have the same amount of knowledge as you do we just believe in a creator not a random group of event's.
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Athiest feel that if they talk louder and get the last word in that they have won there argument which is a falsehood,religious people just have enough sense to see that some argument's cant be won(on either side)and act as adult's should.Atheism is a road that leads to immorality and licentiousness,When sin isn't governed the spirit become's a disease,which athiest don't believe in sin of course i mean why would they, law's laid into place by an intelligent designer, insanity lol
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87 Religious people just have enough sense?
Definition of a religious person is someone who will take a proposition at face value based on no evidence at all. i.e. Faith based beliefs. Therefore to entrust the integrity of any argument to such people is a contradiction of terms. So, i'm sorry.....No.
Dgoosh1000 5 days ago
@Dgoosh1000 Your post is very hypocritical,you have no proof for what you believe.The argument's of atheist are weak so instead of proving point's you take stab's at the moral foundation of religion.Then try to stay on the offensive leaving religious debaters defending themselves the entire time as to keep attention away from the FACT that you have no substantial evidence to prove your argument's and in a way that's faith as well and go ahead be dismissive it's the only thing atheist are good at
riverstory87 5 days ago
@riverstory87
Now your trying my patience.
In your original post you described someone of no faith as a road that leads to immorality and licentiousness.
Does it.
Well if proof is your game then how about your name?
If went out of your way to look foolish then well done.
Dgoosh1000 4 days ago
@Dgoosh1000 Wow you must be one of them expert's at name calling lol Your inability to control your frustration over a simple conversation prove's that atheist have no morals.You see name calling and negative ridicule are the cause of countless lives look at columbine for instance.That inability to control a negative emotion is a distant cousin to an inability to control evil look at the holocaust.
riverstory87 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87
"That inability to control a negative emotion"
Projecting much?
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@riverstory87 ."You see name calling and negative ridicule are the cause of countless lives look at columbine"
Are the cause?
A definite statement based on nothing at all.
There comes a point when what someone says is self discrediting and you have reached that point. In the face of the evidence presented, the anonymous person reading these past few posts can draw only one conclusion.
Thanks, your inane postulations and blusterings have done all my work for me.
Dgoosh1000 3 days ago
@Dgoosh1000 Indubiously i say unto you my fine postulated unequivocally challenged counterpoint.The fidelity of your statement's are void of truth and lean towards an ambiguous foundation.You see what ive done just know is called wordplay and it doesnt mean anything its just a way to make the crowd believe you are smarter then what you are when really you are merely dodging the answers and punching wholes in theory's and starting entirely new argument's to get the view off of what you dont know
riverstory87 3 days ago
@riverstory87 We'll you have just done what your accusing me of doing.
So... I dunno, it's now become embarrassing to read what you think is relevant or comprehend-able. If you read your first post directed towards me you make all kinds of attacks on the nature of the objection I made completely ignoring the objection itself.
I was going to let it pass but now you've started the negative game your going to find yourself stuck.
Dgoosh1000 2 days ago
@riverstory87
"Athiest feel that if they talk louder and get the last word in that they have won"
This is a clear case of projection, since it's most often the religious people who do this.
"Atheism is a road that leads to immorality and licentiousness"
And this is nothing but the same ol' "slippery slope" argument: "Non-belief leads to moral decay!" It's total hogwash, as demonstrated by many secular societies which do just fine.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "This is a clear case of projection, since it's most often the religious people who do this."
This is clearly a case of projection, since it is most often the atheist people who do this.
Alright, now let this response stew around in your mind, think about it for a little bit, then respond.
turokdarkstar 4 days ago
@turokdarkstar
"This is clearly a case of projection, since it is most often the atheist people who do this."
Please point out where atheists do it. Be precise.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Animal's have no moral's if one kill's the other there isn't hurt feeling's, it's nature. If we were animal's like atheist believe then why do we feel sorrow and anguish in the face of thing's like murder and rape?It's an atheistic propaganda or in your word's "total hogwash"
riverstory87 4 days ago
@riverstory87
"Animal's have no moral's if one kill's the other there isn't hurt feeling's, it's nature"
That's nonsense. Elephants grieve over their deceased, for one. Chimpanzees are also shown to have empathy for other chimpanzees. Sympathy and empathy are qualities of ALL social mammals.
"why do we feel sorrow and anguish in the face of thing's like murder and rape?"
Because we're social animals.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer What about rape great white sharks take the female by force is that rape no it is not just as dogs do it and every other animal out there its an act of nature but if we do it it is morally wrong and morals come from god
riverstory87 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riverstory87
"great white sharks"
... are not human beings, so why would I look to them for moral issues?
Also, learn how to construct proper sentences, using punctuation. Your drivel is really hard to read
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@riverstory87 What is this...I dont even, Sharks and Dogs act on instinct and lives by it. But we have something called consciousness which evolves with age, if you throw away a ball a dog will blindly chase it without questioning it, because it acts on instinct.
EczilaSF 3 days ago
@EczilaSF I"m talking about moral's not consciousness,Without moral's then you would be acting like an animal.Say everybody just stopped living with morals,children stopped being taught how to act,eventually over time murder well wouldn't be called that anymore, rape would just be the pursuit to continue the cycle.We would regress just look at some of the third world country's out there it's kill or be killed not because of poverty but because of weak moral value
riverstory87 3 days ago
@riverstory87 we are just animals. and we don't need god to have morals, society decides whats moral based on its impact
siwooot 2 days ago
@EczilaSF The indian's didn't have bottled or running water, canned food's, paved street's or a sense of moral value and look how they acted the pioneer's called them savage's.You cant honestly say they weren't as evolved as the rest of the world either because they had been around just as long as every one else.They hadn't been taught about god yet and that's what god does,he ground's you morally.
riverstory87 3 days ago
@riverstory87 the pioneers called the indians savages because they didn't have god? well 1. they did have their own gods and 2. they called the indians savages and then went on to enslave and massacre them, if anyone were the savages it was the pioneers, is this what god taught them?
siwooot 2 days ago
@riverstory87 And you should be more critical against History, History is always written by the winners. The people who called them savages also enslaved millions of people.
EczilaSF 4 hours ago
@riverstory87
"They say the universe was created by gases gathering"
Nope, that's not what "they" are are saying at all. If you want to criticize a scientific theory, at least try to address what it really states.
"if you cant tell me where it? all came from in the first place"
If you claim a god did it, then where did that come god from?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer The universe was created from negative unseen energy. Funny the bible says the very same thing :P
You realize of course much of today's sciences are riding the coattails of thos who CAME UP with science, be it math, chemistry, electromagnatism, aerodynamics and flight etc (All were Judeo/CHristians/Muslims)
Newton one big example, where would our science be without his biblical inspiration?
there IS science in the bible, for those who understand
EquitesVeritatis 4 days ago
@EquitesVeritatis
"Funny the bible says the very same thing"
Please point out where in the Bible the phrase "negative unseen energy" occurs.
"All were Judeo/CHristians/Muslims"
And none of them let their religion interfere with their science. As soon as they did, everything they did was worthless.
"Newton"
...wasted a lot of time on the Temple of Solomon. His scientific work has no need for any god.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer And the simple fact that everything (even sentience is largely determined by the endocrine system and to some extent DNA, eg DRD4) can be explained with MATH. Eg when our computers are powerful enough, we will be able to make complete sense of weather and be able to calculate all the variables.
This shows that there was design behind it all. The only things that are unpredictable are that which we have not fully understood yet.
EquitesVeritatis 4 days ago
@EquitesVeritatis
"This shows that there was design behind it all. "
That's a complete non sequitur.
MomoTheBellyDancer 4 days ago
Do not serve me, be my friend. If you choose not to be my friend...no problem,you have free will that my father has given to you. I will just choose to burn you forever.
yourfullofsheite 6 days ago
Glorify god and enjoy him? If that isn't servitude, I don't know what is
TheDano1947 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Craig must have a dozen PhDs in pseudo-profundity.
MultiUniv3rsal 1 week ago
Craig has no right to tell us atheists if our life has a meaning or not, or if this meaning is an illusion. I know the meaning of my life for I have decided that I should dedicate my life to the foreign languages. I know I could not be happy speaking only French and English, I need more. And he has zero right to tell my this is a delusion. I make my own purpose in life.
GamblingDementor 1 week ago
Craig seems like a very nice guy overall and seems to be very articulate in the field of philosophy. I just think he is wrong in regards to the existance of a supernatural being. I personally don't care if there is an objective purpose for us. I as many others, enjoy life and care for my friends and family because I enjoy seeing them happy. I fail to see how a god is relevant as to whether or not life has meaning
ibreathexcellence 1 week ago
I admire Craig in some way, but in whatever he believes, doesn't go hand to hand with Christianity....
colombus66 1 week ago
Craig's life needs a supernatural comfort blanket.
MrsZambezi 1 week ago
@MrsZambezi did you watch the whole debate? Hitchens get's spanked.
muslimgiga 1 week ago
@muslimgiga Craig is very good at sounding smart and using a lot of scientific/philosophical words to try and emphasize his points, but most of his arguments have no footing. He's very situational and hypothetical and what he says doesn't always relate to what religion actually is, or has done. Hitchens on the other hand keeps everything relevant and brings up real issues, backed by real evidence. Craig is the one who gets spanked.
490310001 1 week ago
@490310001 Hitchens is the same. He can't argue with logical coherence and just "dismisses" everything if it sound "irrational" to him. That's not being an academic. That's just being a scumbag. Notice how Craig respects Hitchen's "OUTSTANDING"(lol) prepositions and tries to maintain coherency. Hitchens is all over the place.
muslimgiga 1 week ago
@muslimgiga I would agree and I wish Hitchens would answer the question no matter how irrational it may be, but not answering a question does not reflect poor debating skills. Especially when he probably does get a lot of very poor questions, or questions he has already answered earlier in the debate. Craig thinks he's answering Hitchens' questions but in reality he is answering with hypotheticals. Craig's points only make sense if you adopt his religious perspective
490310001 1 week ago
@490310001 those adjectives are: mysterious, what we don't know. He isn't an actual being when described-out
iliveon 1 week ago
@muslimgiga You are truly deluded. You must be a theist
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@muslimgiga Lane Craig is an annoying indoctrinated dick and Hitch can't be bothered with his asinine questions. That isn't getting spanked.
MrsZambezi 1 week ago
@muslimgiga That's your opinion surrounded by what you perceive in your own ways. I'm pretty confident that Craigs arguments are foundless, even down to to his magical story about the empty tomb which happens to be written in story book form. His morality argument fails like this: (im using evidence here) meaning comes from sentient minds, I think everyone can agree with that. We have sentient minds, god granting life meaning makes no sense and needing a god to punish or reward is just like
iliveon 1 week ago
@muslimgiga is just like a child needing his mom or dad to watch him play with his friends in the sandbox. It is absolutely childish for him to keep bringing this up everytime; he tries to have it both ways. he says atheists are just as moral, then he says that atheists have no meaning in life, as if he speaks for them, or as if they need ANOTHER sentient being to observe meaning for them. God, to me, is an absolute tack-on. That's why the razor cuts him off. He just stands for adjectives.:
iliveon 1 week ago
Nothing is ever created. Things in the natural universe at a fundemental level only transform from pattern to pattern. Whatever existed before the big bang existed as something else possibly following a different set of physical laws.
TheDetoX 1 week ago
And what does the purpose of the universe have to do with our own purpose? They could be totally different and unrelated things.
YaleBreaker 1 week ago
Craig assumes there can be such a thing as objective meaning. If meaning is necessarily subjective, then he's wrong.
How about this: "Objectively speaking, people are free to decide their own meaning."
YaleBreaker 1 week ago
Jesus also said Matthew 10:34-38 anyone want to read that one...
tsunami770 1 week ago
laws of physics need to be created as well.
SukiCarton 1 week ago
Awesome. :']
JesseQuintana 1 week ago
Dr.William Lane Craig is my hero!!! u can't beat a philosopher dumbass and GOD exists wether u choose to believe or not, and see u all in judgement day!!
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam Would you care to discuss his arguments ?He Even negates the cosmological argument himself so I doubt you'd care to debate this one. Unless you'd care to talk about how ridiculous it is for him to use a failed argument
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Why did u bother live anyway?:lol
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC "If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC "The way in which i know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. this give me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart of the evidence. And therefore if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity. "
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC continued ". I don’t think that controverts the witness of the holy spirit. In such a situation i should regard that as a result of the contingent circumstance that I’m in and if I pursued this with due diligence and with time I would discover in fact the evidence if I could get the correct picture would support what the witness of the holy spirit tells me
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam Word for word out of WLC's mouth. the Cosmological Argument refuted by Craig himself. apparently he doesn't mind substituting Common sense and intuition for logic reason and evidence
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam Ohh and to answer your question . I live to shoot down petty small minds like yourself. LOL
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Thanx for ur energy lol btw, u still didnt disprove the existence of GOD, which is a matter of choise, so according to Pascal's wager, i'd rather choose to give my life a purpose than live like im in a free fall without any purpose, and dont even start with living a fullfilling life bullshit, wanna give urself a reason to do all kinds of animal sh*t, go and do it, and stop feeling bad abt urself, if u're a true atheist, u wldnt even give a f*ck abt this debate....
shoussam 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 ...trying to prove urself right, u're wasting ur life time, btw u shld know that Dawkins sold about 3mill copies of his delusional "God's delusion" what're u doing? backing him up on youtube? lol maybe he did it for the money and at least he got sth out of it, what u got?? wasting ur life on youtube and then go to hell, a question that u shld always keep in mind is : what if im wrong? and btw it's Hitchen who keeps dodging Craig's arguments, hedirectlymovestoanotherquestion
shoussam 1 week ago
Isn't it funny the world and belief in God is supposed to make the world beautiful and if it becomes atheist it will dark and dead? Hmmm most of the world believes in God and it doesn't seem the belief in God has made it a very happy planet. Take a look at our planet
misssueis55 1 week ago
I love how Hitchens has no answer to the question. He just babbles and dodges and never gives a concrete answer. Craig destroyes all Atheists in the Debates.
jonnyneo53 1 week ago
@jonnyneo53 Craig uses the same 5 failed arguments over and over. Why should Hitchens argue against them . Should Hitchens be required to prove the earth is round.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emailpobox666 "Craig uses the same 5 failed arguments over and over"
Um, no athesit has ever beaten any of Craigs arguements, so how can they be failed? ALL Atheist arguements are epic failures.
"Criag uses the cosmological argument when he himself admitted that it is a failed logical argument"
When did he ever admit it failed? Resorting to lies now, huh?
jonnyneo53 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Because no Dawkins or Atkins or this fat bastard can answer to the question without giving another question!!! 5 simple arguments are enough to make them look like fools, because those so called modern darwinists arent that bright actually, they're just good at confusing, dodging questions with other questions, but they never disproved the existence of GOD, If u can't prove it, it doesnt mean it doesnt exist" ;=)
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam No atheist n debates save for Quentin Smith put themselves down to Craig's level. It's obvious that you believe what you will on the basis of faith which is acceptable. When you try to cloak it in a thin veil off logic and reason is when I have a problem.You apparently don't mind wasting your time on youtube defending Craig
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 I just come when i find a response to my comments, and who cares about time, as long as i know where im going, unlike you, ur life will end by the time u're dead lol which is not true but anyway, i find it funny and contradictory how atheists give a sh*t in what other people believe or dont, i mean if u're sure about ur decision or choise, why wld u bother who's right or wrong ? just live ur life peacefully until u're dead, or ur life is soemptyandlonelyuwanttotakepeopledownwithu?
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam Both our lives end when we die you just delude yourself to thinking otherwise. If religion had a positive effect on society it wouldn't matter to us but as it stands all the studies that have been done show a correlation. The more religious a society the more social problems like abortion teen pregnancy homicide etc etc
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam btw, now u skipped Dawkins and hitchens to the retard Smith lol did u even watch the debate??? It's obvious that you believe what you will on the basis of choosing not to believe which is acceptable.
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam Smith is the one philosopher who knocks Craig down on his ass. He is not the most articulate one of the group but his logic is unquestionable
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam That must be a real kick in the ass for you that Smith has defeated Craig over and over. I believe in logic and reason not wishful thinking superstition
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 U're just believing what u want to believe, saying that smith won, doesnt mean u will change reality, anyone who watched the video knows whats up, so just calm down, i bet it will a real kick in ur balls to live on believing that ur life ends by death when u wake up somewhere else wondering wtf is happening!!! see u on the other side lol
shoussam 1 week ago
@shoussam Read the debate for yourself. Here I'll post Craig's rebuttal and you judge for yourself
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion. "
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam WLC Continued ". The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories!
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@shoussam Craig's top argument for god's existence reduced to him arguing that common sense and intuition should override philosophical theories/ideas
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 i doubt you are smarter than craig wehter you disagree w him or not
pplus0440 1 week ago
@pplus0440 Insulting me is no way of disputing an argument.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@pplus0440 Anyone with a high school diploma and a couple courses in,philosophy can easily dispute Craig's arguments
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@pplus0440 These where my objections to Craig's arguments. Cosmological- causality is incoherent prior to the universes existence Moral- circular reasoning . God gives objective morals objective morals prove god Fine Tuning - begs the question assumes that the universe has a purpose Ontological argument - incoherent concept of a Maximal Great being. Omniscience and omnipotence are incompatible with omni-benevolence.
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@pplus0440 Craig admitted that his own cosmological argument was incoherent 15 years ago but it hasn't stopped him from using it
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@pplus0440 So can I assume appeals to authority are ended and I won't post my IQ to compare with Dr Craig's. LOL
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 You clearly don't understand why he used the argument or why he says it is incoherent.
pplus0440 5 days ago
@pplus0440 WLC " If the claim that God caused the Big Bang cannot be analyzed in terms of extant definitions of causality, then God cannot have caused the Big Bang. I see no reason to think that this premise is true. In general, arguments to the effect that some intuitively intelligible notion can't be analyzed in terms of certain philosophical theories should make us suspect the adequacy of those theories rather than reject the common sense notion.
emailpobox666 5 days ago
@pplus0440 WLC Continued "The idea that God caused the universe is intuitively intelligible. A cause is, loosely speaking, something which produces something else and in terms of which the thing that is produced can be explained. This notion certainly applies to God's causing the universe. If God's causing the universe cannot be analyzed in terms of current philosophical definitions of causality, then so much the worse for those theories" Quentin Smith Vs Craig 1996
emailpobox666 5 days ago
@pplus0440 You tell me what you think I got wrong? LOL
emailpobox666 5 days ago
@jonnyneo53 Perhaps you can explain why Criag uses the cosmological argument when he himself admitted that it is a failed logical argument
emailpobox666 1 week ago
Pffft scientology is the answer. ITS THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING EVEN... ... ummmmm .... YOUR FACE SHUTTING UP.
DrSatanAIDS 1 week ago
If you castrated David Lee Roth you would end up with William Lane Craig.
MrBeautifulba1 1 week ago
"Judge a man on his ability to dance with abandon." - Albert D. Xavier 1973
MrBeautifulba1 1 week ago
he is free now hahahahah
albusai 1 week ago
what a true champion this willian, and the other one is a true dead guy
albusai 1 week ago
@albusai Craig uses the same 5 failed arguments over and over
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 No other animal seeks to explain its existence. It is here to exist and to keep the species going but it doesn't worry about it. It doesn't justify it. It just is what it is. And the morality issue? How religions dare to suggest that their morality is the ideal is an outrage. Justify as they will, the Abrahamic religions are flawed and sick. I want no part of their morality.
Oilisdeathtomany 1 week ago
@Oilisdeathtomany "No other animal seeks to explain its existence" That is an assumption we don't know this to be true. Morality imposed by an imaginary god is less than worthless while a morality developed over 100,000 years of civilization is to be admired. I assume you to be Christian . Yahweh is far from a moral authority
emailpobox666 1 week ago
@emailpobox666 Assume away. Either you struggle with basic comprehension, or did you not actually read my post? We are animals and I struggle to comprehend why anyone thinks we're exceptional when it has been clearly demonstrated that humans are just high functioning primates.
Oilisdeathtomany 1 week ago
@Oilisdeathtomany The latter
emailpobox666 1 week ago