tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post1743760356035908817..comments2024-03-25T17:35:02.238-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: William Lane Craig "Won by a Landslide" Against HitchensUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger59125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41118696460686872842010-03-14T04:39:58.371-04:002010-03-14T04:39:58.371-04:00How could something evolve over millions of years ...How could something evolve over millions of years if the life span of the creature is much shorter.<br /> Please read my web site www.god-does-exist.comUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974312990308623907noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6003365362222632632010-02-02T00:34:21.554-05:002010-02-02T00:34:21.554-05:00Its always good to see Steven Carr in the blog wor...Its always good to see Steven Carr in the blog world whining about something.tyler m taberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08632593368002962358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-11608420860989320562009-05-09T21:19:00.000-04:002009-05-09T21:19:00.000-04:00I don't think Craig would beat Peter Singer in an ...I don't think Craig would beat Peter Singer in an argument on objective morality.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00873569262696096779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1467877907367591882009-04-20T02:18:00.000-04:002009-04-20T02:18:00.000-04:00@sfish
You must remember the interconnected nature...@sfish<br />You must remember the interconnected nature of our species. A life lived purely selfish and self-preserved is a life wasted. Remember that we are a) animals, and thus reproduce, and b) social creatures and thus human contact matters. <br /><br />In the scheme of things, our lives matter not. Yet that doesn't alleviate our social responsibilities. That doesn't alleviate the feelings we have to protect future generations. If we don't stand up against the fundamentalists who are pushing their archaic, draconian dogma on others, who will? Who will protect the earth for future generations? You may have one eye on heaven, but some of us want this world to work because it's the only one we have.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-76378745965411912502009-04-16T16:09:00.000-04:002009-04-16T16:09:00.000-04:00William Lane Craig could be the best debater in th...William Lane Craig could be the best debater in the world but the points he makes are ridiculous and therefore he deserves to be ridiculed as do other slaves to superstition.Blueprint Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01008637511226119791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-37208870444247511002009-04-16T06:28:00.000-04:002009-04-16T06:28:00.000-04:00Then you probably never were a believer, but rathe...Then you probably never were a believer, but rather someone who searched an argument for not being one. By the way, assuming atheism, there is no "good" nor "evil", as there is no absolute power to define either of these terms, reducing them to be 100% subjective and therefore meaningless.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-2160086992597024982009-04-15T21:26:00.000-04:002009-04-15T21:26:00.000-04:00@sfish
During my decade as a believer, not once d...@sfish<br /><br />During my decade as a believer, not once did an educated atheist explain clearly why the bible simply not the word of a God. Looking back, I wish someone would have. Most people know very little about religion. If I can help just one person see through the delusion, I'll know I've done them a great favor. Just for the sake of being good, no heavenly reward! =)Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16419910209324085552noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17614813986892910302009-04-15T19:56:00.000-04:002009-04-15T19:56:00.000-04:00All you atheists... you only have <100 years of...All you atheists... you only have <100 years of living left - why waste it on all this pointless writing? You should take advantage of every minute of your life to do something fun and meaningful instead. Unless, as long as there are people believing in a God, you fail in feeling 100% safe about your conviction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64441030052060014582009-04-08T16:06:00.000-04:002009-04-08T16:06:00.000-04:00I just listened to most of the Tabash / Craig deba...I just listened to most of the Tabash / Craig debate and I still can't fathom why he has such a reputation as a debater. He just keeps trotting out the same, tired old theist and Christian arguments that have been refuted long ago, I presume because he debates in front predominantly Christian crowds who have either never heard the Cosmological argument before, or at the very least have never heard how well it's been refuted.<BR/><BR/>Craig's other "go-to" seems to be indulging in circular arguments by using the Bible as evidence for the truth of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>Maybe I just haven't seen his best debating, but I'm severely underimpressed.mathyoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13969636014840275570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-21391411498554994602009-04-07T05:03:00.000-04:002009-04-07T05:03:00.000-04:00Sorry Landon for getting your name wrong.Sorry Landon for getting your name wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-50340945427598060012009-04-07T05:01:00.000-04:002009-04-07T05:01:00.000-04:00Langdon, David Marshall and I have agreed to debat...Langdon, David Marshall and I have agreed to debate each other already. It's just a matter of logistics at this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-60008144986991220502009-04-07T04:59:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:59:00.000-04:00Langdon said...I see what you're trying to do, but...Langdon said...<I>I see what you're trying to do, but frankly Craig would laugh at the suggestion that he's afraid to debate you.</I><BR/><BR/>Listen, Eddie Tabash brow beat Craig into debating him, and Eddie did one of the best jobs against him. You can see the debate <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/09/eddie-tabash-recommends-my-book.html" REL="nofollow">right here</A> with a little self-promotion I did as well . ;-)<BR/><BR/>I hope to do likewise. What's wrong with that? Rather than repeatedly telling me he won't debate me, instead go with your gut. If you'd like to see this debate as others would, then why not call for such a debate? Have him man up, as it were. Have him show that he's not afraid by debating me, if that's what you want. Do you want to see such a debate, or not?<BR/><BR/>He did say what I say he did. He will not deny it. that's the only word he's ever given about why he won't do it. And the fact that I don't have a Ph.D. is irrelevant since I have the near equivalent and the reasoning behind him not debating anyone else is because he doesn't want to debate hacks. He knows I'm not a hack.<BR/><BR/>Cheers.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8268121192126356622009-04-07T04:50:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:50:00.000-04:00John - "start blogging"?Don't make me come over th...John - "<B>start</B> blogging"?<BR/><BR/>Don't make me come over there! <A HREF="http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress" REL="nofollow">I've been at it for a wee while now.</A><BR/><BR/>It's nice to be welcome, thanks. I'll check out the link and offer my thoughts. Just so you know, I've just casually mentioned - only in passing and all ;) - over at my blog that I've made the debate offer.<BR/><BR/><BR/>On a side note: The word verification that I have to enter to make this comment appear is "mingie." Over here that means "smelly."Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-35461972352013153782009-04-07T04:43:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:43:00.000-04:00Glenn, it sure is nice to see you here. I welcome ...Glenn, it sure is nice to see you here. I welcome all comments from intelligent respectful Christians, and you are one of them by far. Why O why you moderate at TWeb is beyond me. You're much better than that. Why don't you start blogging? You have a Blog. Do it. I'd like to interact with more thoughtful Christians in the Blog world.<BR/><BR/>With regard to the atheist comments here I cannot respond to everything I disagree with, and you're correct about the Kalam. you may want to stick around and defend that against them if you'd like to. <BR/><BR/>As far as the moral argument goes, if I remember correctly that's your forte. I think morals evolved, period. There is no moral argument to God's existence if true, and I think it is. <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/02/what-can-account-for-morality-were.html" REL="nofollow">Check this out</A> and then see what you think.<BR/><BR/>Cheers, my friend.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-16877798343597853892009-04-07T04:28:00.000-04:002009-04-07T04:28:00.000-04:00Hey John, Glenn here (from TWeb and Beretta, my si...Hey John, Glenn here (from TWeb and Beretta, my site).<BR/><BR/>As an atheist who presumably understands the cosmological argument that Craig uses, are you at all frustrated by the efforts of other atheists here in this very blog discussion who attempt to make the argument look bad by calling it a "god of the gaps" argument?<BR/><BR/>I think that's a big part of the cause for contempt for some of the "new atheists" (and I'm not including you in the camp by any means). They should - and probably do - know better than to ridicule and dismiss some theistic arguments they way they do. It presents the image that Christian apologists are careful, checking the way they portray the arguments that they criticise, whereas over the fence int he atheist camp, there are just no rules of conduct.<BR/><BR/>Well, nobody here has yet called anyone on the clear misrepresentation of the cosmological argument.<BR/><BR/>John, if you'd like to get in a little shooting practice for your hopeful encounter with Craig, how about meeting me (virtually speaking) to debate something like, say, the moral argument?Glennhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15365045662764795503noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1557702750436527382009-04-06T22:10:00.000-04:002009-04-06T22:10:00.000-04:00It was a bit of a set-up. Hitchens is a journalist...It was a bit of a set-up. Hitchens is a journalist, and wit, not really a philosopher (though he acts the part at times). He's no Bertrand Russell, or even Dawkins. <BR/><BR/>A clever theologian will usually spin circles (or spider webs) against the sort of belle-lettrist cynic. Regardless, Hitchens appears to have brought up a few important if obvious points: such as the idea that theists should be able to prove that God exists, not merely show the possibility. <BR/><BR/>I think Hitch, was suggesting the lack of necessity to ANY of the classical arguments for "God" (as say Kant, Hume, or even Russell might have), but he doesn't really want to lower himself to mere disputation. That's fine--he's sort of an entertainer--but if you're participating in a formal debate, some precision is needed. The cosmological argument itself is hardly immune from criticism: the first and rather obvious philosophy undergraduate approach might make use of Kant's First Antinomy (not to say the fact that the Big Bang is a scientific theory and still being disputed). As Kant said, an infinite series--even of Time itself-- is not contradictory, however mind-boggling. The theologians trick is to introduce jargon such as necessary and he creates the appearance of logical necessity when there isn't any. <BR/><BR/>The moral arguments are also dubious. Some people have a moral sensibility. Many don't. The Founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin were emphatic that justice was to be secular, without reference to any religion, etc. Hume's point on the is-ought also a rather convincing argument contra-rational or theological ethics. <BR/><BR/>Hitchens could have at least trotted out Hume as well on the miracles and the fallibility of scripture: even if the classical arguments show the plausibility of a Primum Mobile that, one, has nothing to do with the God of Old and New Testaments, and two, the texts themselves are no more reliable than any ancient texts, etc. <BR/><BR/>So Craig may have "won" in terms of impressive rhetoric, but he can't really prove anything, other than possibility. That said, Hitchens' sort of Richard Jenkins schtick probably entertained a few of the Biola dweebs.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-15829581001798878442009-04-06T21:44:00.000-04:002009-04-06T21:44:00.000-04:00Why is it that so many people put this as an eithe...Why is it that so many people put this as an either / or? That either Fundamentalist Christianity is true or that atheism is? Hell, we can't even get an agreed upon definition of what constitutes atheism, let alone atheism not having any dogma. <BR/><BR/>This isn't a battle of two sides, it's a battle of whether certain ideas are best to explain reality. By playing it as if fundamentalist christianity and Hitchen's point of view are the only two viewpoints, it neglects the myriad of views that exist in the collective human meme-pool that all attempt to try and explain the same thing. Being able to trounce an atheist in a debate does not make God any more or less real, just as a creationist trouncing a scientist (see: Gish Gallop) in a debate does not mean that creationism is true.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-43167381760131298682009-04-06T19:27:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:27:00.000-04:00Will77 is right on about Craig. Craig is always pl...Will77 is right on about Craig. Craig is always playing word games and psychology tricks. He uses repetition words like facts, historical, and independent when referring to the new testament documents. He also repeats his "majority of scholars" appeal constantly.<BR/><BR/>He wins by getting people to argue over details in a fictional story and asking "why would they make this up?" as if the opponent not being able to explain why someone might say something is proof that the person was speaking truth.<BR/><BR/>For example, he says the Mark account of the empty tomb is a sober, historical account showing no signs of embellishment. He emphasizes this by reading from the resurrection account in a gnostic gospel which is loaded with outrageous claims and exaggerations. This is pure trickery. Sure the Mark account sounds less absurd than the other example, but that does not mean the Mark account is true. Especially when the Mark resurrection account is read along with the rest of the Mark story. If you read Mark from beginning to end you can see it is fictional through and through.<BR/><BR/>When Craig debated Robert Price, Craig went first and then Price went second. Price said he was going to read a prepared statement instead of simply responding immediately to Craig's introduction. When Craig began his rebuttal, he complained "well I am glad he finally got to talking about the evidence for the resurrection at the end of his speech!" To which the audience full of christian ignoramuses gave a loud applause.<BR/><BR/>How idiotic for Craig to complain that Price didn't use his introduction time to rebut Craig's introduction. Craig is a sleezy, fuck tard.Hosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138090992136922216noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-420943735503986452009-04-06T19:13:00.000-04:002009-04-06T19:13:00.000-04:00John,I see what you're trying to do, but frankly C...John,<BR/><BR/>I see what you're trying to do, but frankly Craig would laugh at the suggestion that he's afraid to debate you. I don't say this because I think little of you, I say this because when Craig and I talked about you he showed exactly the opposite attitude as you seem to want to attribute to him. But he did clearly tell me (and Darrin, on another occasion) that it is a tragedy what has happened to you and he will not have anything to do with helping make you into "Mr. Anti-Christian Apologist." If you want to keep saying he's afraid to debate you, nobody will stop you. But really, I think he would laugh at the idea.<BR/><BR/>I haven't been able to formally evaluate your merits yet, but I have your book and will look into it when I have an opportunity (probably sometime this summer). If I find anything to comment on I'll do so on my blog.<BR/><BR/>Again, perhaps you should consider debating some other Christian apologists. Even if Craig did eventually decide to debate you, you would at least have more practice by that time. I believe I recommended some time ago that you and David Marshall debate; perhaps you could give that a try. I recommended Marshall as an opponent for Robert Price to Reggie on the Infidel Guy show, and shortly later the two debated on that show. He was a good, informed opponent as far as I could tell. He's no Craig, but he'll be a worthy match on some debate topics.Landon Hedrickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12478038936820787129noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8060608561849265282009-04-06T16:51:00.000-04:002009-04-06T16:51:00.000-04:00Steven Carr - You have made the claim that Craig d...Steven Carr - You have made the claim that Craig did not win. Will you make the claim that Hitchens won?<BR/><BR/>Roger Sharp<BR/>Confident ChristianityConfident Christianityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03498956805810438972noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-17964675266422558732009-04-06T15:49:00.000-04:002009-04-06T15:49:00.000-04:00Having read a summary, Craig's arguments are prett...Having read a summary, Craig's arguments are pretty poor. However, a debate isn't about who is right, or even who has the best arguments, it is about who presents them better and who responds to their opponent better. If Hitchens had better preparation, he'd have done better, but when faced with a theological version of the Gish Gallop, there may not be much he can do, unless he goes there specifically to refute Craig rather than try to make any arguments of his own.G. Shelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04493374710436465454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-23045000400550050342009-04-06T13:31:00.000-04:002009-04-06T13:31:00.000-04:00Quine, It is not necessary to “redeem” the atheist...Quine, <BR/><BR/>It is not necessary to “redeem” the atheist position from anything Craig has said or done. John's arguments stand or fall (in my opinion, the former is correct) irrespective of whether Craig will debate him, and irrespective of the outcome of that debate. If John wants to debate Craig, it's for another purpose than to prove that the atheist side is correct. That's already been done. <BR/><BR/>It's not entirely correct to say that oral debates are worthless. True, they are primarily a test of debating skills, generally don't change minds, and certainly don't prove anything. But they do serve at least two potential purposes: they can reinforce pre-existing beliefs, and they can expose people to positions they may not previously have been aware of. (Do you suppose it's a coincidence that Bill Craig is only willing to debate opponents who can't do this competently? He selects his opponents from two types of people: first, ignorant and unpleasant blowhards like Hitchens, and second, college professors with good background and advanced degrees but little debating skill and little time to prepare for such a debate.) <BR/><BR/>As for a Loftus/Craig match, I suspect Craig would win, based on sheer statistics. I'm not aware of Loftus – or anyone currently alive – having the debating skills necessary to score a clear win against Craig; the best he could hope for would be a technical win, which has been accomplished by a number of atheists (fewer than I would like, but many more than Craig sycophants would care to admit).Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566025845622103369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-29399348833881714342009-04-06T12:34:00.000-04:002009-04-06T12:34:00.000-04:00May I quote here the State Representative of South...May I quote here the State Representative of South Carolina from the <I>Greater Charleston Area</I>; <B>Mr. Robert Ford</B> as to how he would have characterized Hitchens’ performance in his debate with Craig: <BR/><BR/>“<B>Hitchens done be stupid and his whole debate done be doomed!</B>”Harry H. McCallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08974655354593831851noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-14508275058312729892009-04-06T11:29:00.000-04:002009-04-06T11:29:00.000-04:00I apologize if this is off-topic, but it is releva...I apologize if this is off-topic, but it is relevant to Craig's debating style. I think Craig uses some pretty lame arguments actually. They are like philosophical card tricks. The problem is that most opponents don't point them out. For example, I know most will disagree with me, but I did not think he won the Avolos debate, in substance. Maybe he won rhetorically, but it seemed pretty hollow to me. Because Dr. Avalos said repeatedly that Craig's four "facts" were not facts at all. And I thought Avalos gave good reasons. Craig's main recourse to try and reaffirm his "facts" were fallacious appeals to authority and majority, which should immediately have been pointed out. Then Craig used one of his favorite philosophical party tricks and said that Dr. Avalos' empirical rationalism is "overly restricitive and self-refuting". Craig loves that phrase and has used it before..it sounds so final and devastating but it is really just fatuous pretentious blather. On the "self-refuting" point, he said that it cannot affirm itself. And here is where it pays to know some philosophy..all he is doing is a verbal expression of Godel's proof that a theorem or system cannot proove its own axioms without contradiction. So it doesn't actually refute itself, he is just demonstrating a "self-referrential incoherence"- which turns out to be a universal truism. And the reason Dr. Craig claimed that Dr. Avolos' epistemic methodology was "overly restrictive" was because it doesn't explain how we know that something is morally good, beautiful, etc.. But here Craig is doing a slight-of-hand trick, because, as he surely knows, Dr. Avolos' stated epistemic methodology was in reference to determining historical truth. So it involves a different language-game (to borrow Wittgenstein's term) than aesthetic or moral judgments. So his claim that Avolos' methods were "self-refuting and overly restricitive" is pure B.S. Ironically, he complained about Avalos pulling some academic tricks on an "untrained audience"; but Craig depends on an untrained audience to pull off his nonsensical refutations. I expect I would discover the same kind of intellectual chicanery if I explored the cosmological arguments in depth as well. Anyway, just an observation. I agree with everyone that Hitchens was entertaining but didn't win by any stretch of the imagination, due to his refusal to refute the arguments rather than just dismiss them. And I think Mr. Loftus would fair quite well against Craig. He strikes me as extremely able in a debate format. However, victory may be in the eye of the beholder.Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-88817321219889117362009-04-06T11:23:00.000-04:002009-04-06T11:23:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Will77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07373823602815795682noreply@blogger.com