William Lane Craig got pwned by an atheist dog

http://holy.stiforppro.com/?SOURCE=willian-lane-craig-got-pwned-by-an-atheist...

WILLIAM LANE CRAIG GOT PWNED BY AN ATHEIST DOG

What does evangelical Christian theologian William Lane Craig and the most famous dog in Santiago de Chile who made news worldwide have in common? Not even Christopher Hitchens could pwn William Lane Craig in a better fashion than this dog was able to...

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• garbaligion
• anti
• religion
• william
• lane
• craig
• got
• pwned
• by
• an
• atheist
• dog
• atheism
• christopher
• hitchens
• evangelical
• christian
• theologian
• philosophy
• debate
• god
• morals
• moral
• values
• morality
• animals
• biola
• university
• santiago
• de
• chile
• save
• highway
• national
• hero

[chinopisces]

@TaoPiet: Correct. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

[TaoPiet]

This funny idiot turns every argument on his head. If he proposes a 'god' to exist, he asks the non-believer to prove the opposite. That's a false trick.

[MrRobseed]

Craig annoys me with his word-play. objective morality! all well and good Craig it must be God. Craig sounds the part but all his arguments are flawed because he inserts God into them. "IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST#..." Just because someone doesn't reply to that from an athiestic perspective it doesn't support his arguments for the existence of God. The absence of a scientific explanation does not lend support or provide evidence to the existence of a god.

[XZohar123]

@MsOluwatoyin The idea that animal behavior is fundamentally different from that of humans in the way you describe it is rejected by the majority of psychologists. Most either believe that there are many animals that display as much free will as humans (cetaceans, for example), or that humans are basically "prgrammed" machines as well

[Crobat87]

1. Jedi Mind Tricks---your music

2. I never knew dogs could be theistic or atheistic. Thanks for the info.

3. You misunderstand Craig's argument.

[Lpettro]

I think you misstate Craig's position. He always says that the moral argument does not claim that atheists are immoral or somesuch nonsense. Indeed we all know many atheists who are very moral people.

What he is saying is that God is the foundation for morality. It is a question of "ontology" rather than "epistemology". Which is to say that it is concerned with where morals come from rather than how we come to know them.

[hollowcore2]

Most Atheists would be ready to change their belief if presented with sufficient evidence for god. Belief and knowledge are two different things. We humans are all born Atheist. We only turn from this default state when older human beings put delusional ideas in our heads! The dog is Atheist as well, (in regard to the Christian religion most certainly), it does not believe in Yahweh, Jesus or Allah. Therefore Atheist.

[hollowcore2]

The Atheist position is simply one of not BELIEVING in a god or gods. There would be few Atheists who would make the bold statement 'There is no god', the safe way of phrasing it would be 'there probably is no god' (one can't disprove god, but then one can't disprove unicorns either- there may well be unicorns living on another planet somewhere out there in another galaxy- Atheists view god as they would view unicorns or leprechauns- don't believe in them but ready to believe if evidence arrives

[MsOluwatoyin]

Also,a dog isn't an atheist..This is inapplicable to dogs,and all others,who have no idea what God is in the first place.It's not the dog's position that God does not exist.(That's what atheism is)

[MsOluwatoyin]

Umm..Animals,are never more moral than humans..Animal behaviour,is pre-conditioned(Programmed)Mea­ning,they can only behave as their nature determines them to.In order for a dog to behave more moral than a human,the dog would have to be given a choice in the way to behave..So,teh dog,is not a moral agent,like humans are.