William Lane Craig reads a bedtime story

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
William Lane Craig reads a bedtime story

Talk about a walking, talking, living breathing appeal to emotion.

I guess that's what happens when you suck as a philosopher and can't actually prove that there is a god. Use fear instead.

 

I hope this man does not have kids...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
 Again the same old

Again the same old bullshit: Just because something isn't forever, it's worthless. Only eternal things have any ultimate meaning. 
Wait. Who gives a damn about an ultimate meaning? Or better said, what idiot is so conceited, that he wants his life to have an eternal, ultimate meaning? 

We reasonable people will be glad for living meaningful lives as long as we are alive. Some among us would like to leave some positive impact on subsequent decades, centuries or millenia of civilization, but that's all. 

What? ...a meaningless, unending life? Why does it remind me of Christian heaven so much?

If life ends at grave, it makes no difference whether you lived as Stalin or Mother Theresa. Riiight. And when some mass murderer on deathbed accepts JC into his heart, then the result is pretty damn similar. You might just live as you please, just keep a priest nearby. 

What, objective standards of right and wrong? Promoted by the god who loves burnt offerings and burnt cities? Riiight. 

Without god, our life is no different than animal life? And who is going to judge that, if there is no god? And what about eternal burning in hell or eternal reward in heaven for not using our brain makes our life so much more purposeful?

 

Really, I have no idea why the apologetist Stefan Gustavsson (which I had met and debated IRL) recommended me WLC so much. Maybe I'll send him a link to this post on Facebook.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: Without god,

Luminon wrote:
Without god, our life is no different than animal life? 
 

In his estimation, this reality would be unacceptable if it were true. And the odds are good that it is true.

Luminon wrote:
Really, I have no idea why the apologetist Stefan Gustavsson (which I had met and debated IRL) recommended me WLC so much. Maybe I'll send him a link to this post on Facebook.

You should do it, to embarrass him publically. Anyone who sincerely gets behind WLC loses any benefit of the doubt I would grant them by default, of not being an imbecile.

The internet and YouTube was the worst thing to happen to WLC. He's going to go down in history as one of the most inane 21st century philosophical buffoons.

Platinga is even more moronic, but will be a mere footnote in the annals of delusional morons due to keeping a much lower profile.

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
He's such a tool, WLC 's

He's such a tool, WLC 's entire argumnent:

 

Reality is scawwwy!

Magic stories make me feel betta.

And so I believe them, and you can too.

 

 

That is all.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I watched up to 1:08. Am I

I watched up to 1:08.

Am I imagining things, or does he intentionally omit the probable timeline of the events he describes? Meaning, of course, that the ultimate fate of the universe is, nevertheless, a few trillion years off into the future? We'll all be gone by then, and whatever form a civilization with human origins takes -if such a civilization is still present at all-, it's populace will undoubtedly not be human by any current, meaningful definition. So, it is somewhat meaningless to pontificate on the ultimate fate of the universe, except to satisfy curiosity, as a educational tool, a means to increase current knowledge in physics, etc. It's nothing to be afraid any more than one should be afraid of dying from sneezing too hard.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Peppermint42
atheistSuperfan
Peppermint42's picture
Posts: 170
Joined: 2009-11-15
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Am I imagining

Kapkao wrote:

Am I imagining things, or does he intentionally omit the probable timeline of the events he describes? Meaning, of course, that the ultimate fate of the universe is, nevertheless, a few trillion years off into the future? We'll all be gone by then, and whatever form a civilization with human origins takes -if such a civilization is still present at all-, it's populace will undoubtedly not be human by any current, meaningful definition. So, it is somewhat meaningless to pontificate on the ultimate fate of the universe, except to satisfy curiosity, as a educational tool, a means to increase current knowledge in physics, etc. It's nothing to be afraid any more than one should be afraid of dying from sneezing too hard.

 

I was thinking the same thing.  But I was willing to bear with him because I thought he was trying to make an intelligent point until he said "This is really going to happen...  Unless God intervenes first..."  and I nearly rolled off the sofa.  K so trillions of years from now, when there's no reason to expect that Life has managed to continue in its existence up to that point, God will come and...  do what?  Stop time from passing?

I think it's incredibly arrogant to believe that "I exist, therefore my life has to have ultimate meaning", nevermind going around telling other people that his god embodies said "ultimate meaning".  Don't get me wrong, I can totally appreciate the extreme rarity it is to be self-aware in a universe full of inanimate... ness...  but the idea that at some point there will be no more of it ever does not frighten me.  

And I could be wrong but I believe his assertion that eternal life without god would have no meaning is no better than the argument that life in general has no meaning without god.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hey Redneck.

Hey Redneck. I missed you buddy. William Lane Craig is a dummy. I know he has degrees but he's a molinist and is not consistent to Protestant Chrisitan. He's like a hamburger but he tastes like the cows back side. lol.

So I would agree with you my friend. William is nutty nuts. I took some classes under him.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Cesare Borgia
atheist
Cesare Borgia's picture
Posts: 6
Joined: 2011-09-24
User is offlineOffline
This guy is a tool-bag, his

This guy is a tool-bag, his whole argument can be shredded into a thousand pieces and he STILL leaves his debate like he is a victorious gladiator, this is why debating apologists is useless, no matter what you say or how badly you smoke them, they ALWAYS think they won.

If it turns out that there is a God, I don’t think that he’s evil. But the worst that you can say about him is that basically he’s an underachiever.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Useless to convince the

Useless to convince the apologist, usually, yes. Not so useless to show the undecided onlookers how ridiculous the apologist's arguments are.

Depends on the debate format, venue, and audience, though, of course. Important to pick one's battles.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10334
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's all about stategy and

It's all about stategy and intel (the military definition of the word) in a televised or public debate. Far too many atheists and scientists go into them unarmed and unprepared for the level of insanity that they will confront. They expect a debate with reasonable people, because most of the people they know and correspond with are reasonable. They don't look at the oppositions history to see that their position is unreasonable, and don't predict that in order to believe in such nonsense for a significant period of time, and against evidence to the contrary, they must in fact be self delusional.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Good point, Vastet. It

Good point, Vastet. It depends also on the debaters and their preparations, as you say.


Matt (I'm joining the forum) (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Craig is interesting

William Lane Craig has a significant background of information to utilize when formulating his arguments.  To many of the athiests he happens to debate, he appears stifling and applies the "shotgun" method liberally.  Not to mention he employs underhanded and academically dishonest means to justify the existence of God.  In a debate with Massimo Pigliucci (on the existence of the Christian God), Massimo discarded (as irrelevant) Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, Argument from Contingency, and the Argument for Absolute Morals to confront Craig on the grounds of the historocity of Jesus and the Resurrection.  By Massimo discarding those arguments, Craig's tactics switched to focusing on his "concession" of those arguments to prove he could not be an atheist.  Finally he attempted to nullify Massimo's arguments with his typical argument for the Ressurection.

 

Tactically as a debater, he made his play against Massimo Pigliucci bypassing the strength of his position.  It may have worked for many who watched the debate.  But on an intellectually honest level, Massimo won easily, and in his blog I agree he "wiped the floor with Craig's ass."  The debate is on youtube.  Massimo may not have been the more skilled debater, but what sets Craig apart from many of the kooks in Christian apologetics is his ability to obscure his opponent's arguments and exploit apparent contradictions.  If that component of his showmanship is stripped away, what remains is a philosopher and theologian presuming authority in cosmology, mathematics and history.  Especially in the case of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, are we safe to assume Craig has surpassed all of the world's foremost cosmologists to identify (with near certainty) the prime motivator of existence?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Howdy, Matt!Hope you join

Howdy, Matt!

Hope you join the forum.

Your analysis of Craig, is spot on. Add to his tactics, his histrionics of laughing ridiculously while debating, as if to signal that the point he's debating is just 'too easy', and you have a pure schmuck.

If you haven't watched it, watch the debate with him vs Sam Harris, where Harris never gets knocked off his game, and argues right past Craig's theatrics and easily wins the debate by showing that morals can indeed be derived without a god.

Harris is no fool, and played Craig brilliantly.

http://www.samharris.org/archive/P30/

 

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/4486/debating_god:_atheist_and_evangelical_face_off_at_notre_dame

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
I will definitely watch the

I will definitely watch the debate and I joined as of today.  Many philosophers and naturalists who have debated Craig on a single topic demolished him.  Craig no doubt recieves respect as a debater in both theist and athiest communities, but I think when he cannot throw ten points of contention from varying disciplines at an opponent he is at his weakest.  Craig's paradox:  Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, but refusing to counter my arguments in your opening statement is automatic concession.   How many times in how many debates has his first rebuttal been:  "We have heard (x amount of) points of contention tonight, and no good argument against them."


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:...  How many

Matt wrote:

...  How many times in how many debates has his first rebuttal been:  "We have heard (x amount of) points of contention tonight, and no good argument against them."

Grandstanding and chest thumping.

Cheesy high school level debating theatrics. If one reads the links I gave on the Sam Harris debate, you'll see what other tricks Craig tries to use to make it look like he's winning the debate by signalling that his opponent is obligated to put away their prepared monologue, and focus strictly on demolishing Craig's points, or 'lose' the debate.

You argue the topic of the debate, not each other. Arguing each other is simply a brawl.

Sam Harris did that, but did stop of few times to address Craig's cheesy antics. He gave a great argument. His argument was presenting his treatise on the topic. A good tactic, IMO.

The objective is to get people to go home and think on their own. Not whether he can argue against every single point Craig can cram into a debate.

Craig is simply rehashing 20 yr old arguments, with his personal book reviews of Harris' books.

You don't see Harris giving a book review during the debate on Craig's desperate attempt at bolstering the Kalam Cosmological Argument for god into a water tight argument. He doesn't need to attack that pile of sophomoric drivel.

 

BTW, Welcome to the forum, Matt!

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris