The New Atheists are Not Intellectually Bright

William Lane Craig mentions many atheists today (like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, etc.) whose books are unsophisticated, intellectually shallow, and an embarrassment in the field of philosophy.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Sam
• Harris
• Christopher
• Hitchens
• Daniel
• Dennett
• Vic
• Stenger
• Atheists
• Brights
• Philosophy
• Reason
• Rationality
• God
• Delusion
• Is
• Not
• Great
• Letter
• Christian
• Nation
• Evolution
• Darwin
• Intelligent
• Design
• University

[neighbor1961]

I think us laymen have the right to say no to religion, now that we live in an era where we can speak our minds. I understand some few hundred years ago, you didn't have any choice. The Inquisition was there to prove one wrong.

[smartwarlord]

@neighbor1961

Unfortunately 40% of mankind still lives in areas without freedom of religion.

[manonthemount]

@smartwarlord Never forget it is the religious who zealously deny non-believers right to freedom FROM religion.

[smartwarlord]

@manonthemount

There is no freedom from religion anymore than there is freedom from politics or economics. It is a reality of human existence - if you don't like it - then you know what to do.

[mrdarkevilme]

I have come to the conclusion that William Lane Craig is a bad comedian masquarading as a bad philosopher.

[naybobdenod]

WLC is the ` IFMAN `no more and no less,if if if and fucking if,thats all the fucker says.

[fistfulofknowledge]

If a scientist told me that ‘once upon a time a worm evolved into a fish’ I wouldn’t believe it either. Evolution isn’t like that though. If you picked out two separate pictures, one of a fish and another of a human they wouldn’t look anything like each other. If you looked in descending order at different individuals then the story would be different, although that would take a long time due to the vast amount of individuals.

[chadwick1037]

@fistfulofknowledge alright dude, deer stomachs also adapt to the changing season.

only thing i have to say is speciation (from amphibian to reptile) or (reptile to primate) is false. and this is the doctrine that bothers me because it shapes science to what it is today. A system of beliefs based on a time line. It also bothers me that scientists encourage people to believe, "once upon a time, a worm evolved into a fish".

just the way I see it.

[fistfulofknowledge]

@chadwick1037 The theory is not taken dogmatically since it is still called a theory. That does not mean to say though that it's foundation is weak and so far all evidence has pointed towards evolution.  If all this proof disproved evolution then it would be discarded, much like other scientific theories falsified. Religious dogma on the other hand is never tested, rarely observed by more than a few people and the only proof given is faith. They're both completely different.

[fistfulofknowledge]

@chadwick1037 Although it cannot be observed in the cases you mentioned, which is a factually incorrect way that evolution works, evolution has been obseved in other cases. Examples of this are the peppered moths, Italian wall lizards, Darwin's finches, introduction of parasites into blue moon butterflies and also various lab experiments, most notably one on E-Coli. If you don't believe me look it up, these and others are all cases of evolution tested, observed and proven.

[chadwick1037]

@fistfulofknowledge The theory of evolution is also called (Macro-Evolution). This is the theory of speciation. A fish turns into a lizard, then turns into a dinosaur, then turns into a mammal then over time turns into an ape and finally evolves into a human. This Theory has never been tested/observed/proven. It's a dogmatic idea of revelation that requires its followers to have faith in and believe in the principals indoctrinated. The theory of Evolution is as dogmatic(religious) as u can get.

[fistfulofknowledge]

@chadwick1037 Religion isn't about the origins of everything, it only contains that aspect. It has a great deal more. There is a huge difference between religious and scientific ways of coming to a conclusion. Religion uses revalation and dogma, whilst science uses the scientific method in order to come to a conclusion. The theory of evolution has been tested by the latter rather then the former, meaning that it isn't religion. Big Difference between the two.

[ray38montreal]

Craig is an embarassement to himself.

None of these people in this video are even withing the same level of intellectual giants such as Dawkins, Hichens or Harris. Craig and appologist like him are simply crushed when debating.