William Lane Craig

Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
William Lane Craig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLSwRcvX72M

We've all had this guy thrown in our face at one time or another. Turns out he's simply another liar. 

 

Any fans around who want to have a go at explaining this ? 

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
It's nothing less than

It's nothing less than infuriating how WLC samples from actual science to give an intellectual façade to his superstitions.  He selectively quotes from physics when making his cosmological argument, and now here from neuroscience to dispel concerns for animal suffering.  

I'm not sure why he even goes to this trouble, when he's already justified the biblical endorsements of infanticide --while claiming that god is the author of objective morals.   Namely, the children slain by the Israelites got to go straight to heaven rather than living in a sinful pagan culture.  

Once you've adopted such logic, there's no limit to the amount of suffering you're willing to explain away.  

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris

Antipatris wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLSwRcvX72M

We've all had this guy thrown in our face at one time or another. Turns out he's simply another liar. 

Any fans around who want to have a go at explaining this?

He's a loon.

 


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
if dogs can, then many other animals can

http://www.amazon.com/For-Love-Dog-Understanding-Emotion/dp/0345477154/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1356927168&sr=8-9&keywords=patricia+...

For the love of a dog: understanding emotion in you and your best friend, Dr. Patricia McConnell

Dr. McConnell is a ethologist and a dog trainer.  Your dog can feel pain, joy, sadness, happiness.  Granted, it is likely only those emotions termed "primary", that is those emotions that can be stimulated electrically and tracked with fMRIs.  Likely they can not feel "secondary" emotions - those emotions that can not be stimulated electrically and are often a combination of primary emotions.  Such as disgust, shame, embarrassment, and so on.

As for self aware, I have had a dog who was self aware.  We had mirrors in a hallway that he could see himself in.  I once bought a neck bandana for him and put it on at home.  He immediately ran into the hall with the mirrors and turned from side to side and looked at the bandana.  He was admittedly an exceptional dog and I have not seen many other dogs who had that level of self awareness.

I will not go to a vet who does not show compassion for my animal's pain.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

zarathustra wrote:

It's nothing less than infuriating how WLC samples from actual science to give an intellectual façade to his superstitions.  He selectively quotes from physics when making his cosmological argument, and now here from neuroscience to dispel concerns for animal suffering.  

I'm not sure why he even goes to this trouble, when he's already justified the biblical endorsements of infanticide --while claiming that god is the author of objective morals.   Namely, the children slain by the Israelites got to go straight to heaven rather than living in a sinful pagan culture.  

Once you've adopted such logic, there's no limit to the amount of suffering you're willing to explain away.

In which case all those holocausted Jews should be thanking Hitler.

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj

cj wrote:

http://www.amazon.com/For-Love-Dog-Understanding-Emotion/dp/0345477154/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&qid=1356927168&sr=8-9&keywords=patricia+...

For the love of a dog: understanding emotion in you and your best friend, Dr. Patricia McConnell

Dr. McConnell is a ethologist and a dog trainer.  Your dog can feel pain, joy, sadness, happiness.  Granted, it is likely only those emotions termed "primary", that is those emotions that can be stimulated electrically and tracked with fMRIs.  Likely they can not feel "secondary" emotions - those emotions that can not be stimulated electrically and are often a combination of primary emotions.  Such as disgust, shame, embarrassment, and so on.

As for self aware, I have had a dog who was self aware.  We had mirrors in a hallway that he could see himself in.  I once bought a neck bandana for him and put it on at home.  He immediately ran into the hall with the mirrors and turned from side to side and looked at the bandana.  He was admittedly an exceptional dog and I have not seen many other dogs who had that level of self awareness.

I will not go to a vet who does not show compassion for my animal's pain.

 

Me too. Had a German shepherd who was so smart, so self aware that I can't believe I'll ever own another dog like her.

 


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Are you guys kidding me? WLC

Are you guys kidding me? WLC is extremely intelligent and he is actually able to get the  best of many of his opponents! Such as here: the great Chistophor Hitchens is admits he has NO ARGUMENT against a Creator God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=2273s


Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Are you

IntegratedPost wrote:

Are you guys kidding me? WLC is extremely intelligent and he is actually able to get the  best of many of his opponents! Such as here: the great Chistophor Hitchens is admits he has NO ARGUMENT against a Creator God: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=4KBx4vvlbZ8#t=2273s


Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

 

Why would an "extremely intelligent" person make a scientific claim that is simply not true ? 


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level Moderator
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1710
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 WLC is a professional

 WLC is a professional debater. He could probably succeed at  debating a number of people that the universe is only 6000 years old. "Winning" doesn't make him right. Bias to his point of view certainly makes him a "winner" and the opposite a "loser". Agreed he is all about "getting the best". 

Good thing science is not based on Winning.

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris wrote:Why would

Antipatris wrote:

Why would an "extremely intelligent" person make a scientific claim that is simply not true ? 



If making irrational claims makes you an idiot then Hitchens should really take the cake on that one, shouldn't he?

Christopher Hitchens said RIGHT THERE at the link I provided, admits 'IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD EXISTS & CREATED THE UNIVERSE.'

I mean, what kind of Scientist is he if he can't even understand that God is impossible?

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

Why would an "extremely intelligent" person make a scientific claim that is simply not true ? 



If making irrational claims makes you an idiot then Hitchens should really take the cake on that one, shouldn't he?

Christopher Hitchens said RIGHT THERE at the link I provided, admits 'IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD EXISTS & CREATED THE UNIVERSE.'

I mean, what kind of Scientist is he if he can't even understand that God is impossible?

 

 

 

                         Hitchens is NOT a scientist and NEVER claimed to be one.  Listen to the entire  speach (over 10 minute long) and not just the 9 words you quote.  Also take your meds on schedual it would hugely help your preceptions.  Now can you PROVE those 9 words are acurate;  Hitchens made it clear they were not. 

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Here

IntegratedPost wrote:



Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

The Kalaam Argument has been debunked time and time again.

Hardly nothing that mind boggling about that.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:



Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

The Kalaam Argument has been debunked time and time again.

Hardly nothing that mind boggling about that.



SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


Mintyfell
Theist
Mintyfell's picture
Posts: 54
Joined: 2012-11-15
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:



Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

The Kalaam Argument has been debunked time and time again.

Hardly nothing that mind boggling about that.



SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

How do you know that the universe began to exist? What if it just exists? 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:



Here are the actual arguments against. WLC's Cosmological Argument.
http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/Leibniz-Kalam-Cosmological-Argument-REFUTED-William-Lane-Craig

The Kalaam Argument has been debunked time and time again.

Hardly nothing that mind boggling about that.



SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/counter_apologetics/craigs_unsupported_premise/

That is one, do you want to see another ?

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:SO how

IntegratedPost wrote:



HOW do you refute this?

Like this :

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dan_barker/kalamity.html

 

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:P(1):

harleysportster wrote:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Then god would have had to have had a cause wouldn't he ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Antipatris

Antipatris wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLSwRcvX72M

We've all had this guy thrown in our face at one time or another. Turns out he's simply another liar. 

 

Any fans around who want to have a go at explaining this ? 

Being a farm boy I say cows have pain. I've seen many a limping cow with a sore foot or two. If they had no pain then they wouldn't limp. Limping is caused by putting less stress/use on a painful foot. The idea is to alleviate most of the "pain". If there's no pain there's no need to limp. If I'm not mistaken---when I have a sore foot I limp too. Now lemme see if I can equate that to the cow. Hummmm, yup yup, I would say the cow limps for the same reason I do. (sigh) So--why is there barbed wire, because it works. 

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth



Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 205
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost

IntegratedPost wrote:

Antipatris wrote:

Why would an "extremely intelligent" person make a scientific claim that is simply not true ? 



If making irrational claims makes you an idiot then Hitchens should really take the cake on that one, shouldn't he?

Christopher Hitchens said RIGHT THERE at the link I provided, admits 'IT IS POSSIBLE THAT GOD EXISTS & CREATED THE UNIVERSE.'

I mean, what kind of Scientist is he if he can't even understand that God is impossible?

 

 

They can both "take the cake", as far as I'm concerned. 

I'm just not going to call someone "extremely intelligent" if they start making scientific claims that are simply not true. 


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:I mean,

IntegratedPost wrote:


I mean, what kind of Scientist is he if he can't even understand that God is impossible?

What kind of scientist would claim that anything is impossible? It is rather unscientific to dismiss something as impossible, the only reason to dismiss any hypothesis is a lack of evidence for it or a significant amount of evidence against it. If the evidence changes a good scientist should always be prepared to re-evaluate hypothesis' that were dismissed earlier. Including the hypothesis of a god. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey, Integrated

 

IntegratedPost wrote:

I mean, what kind of Scientist is he if he can't even understand that God is impossible?

 

Please roll out your argument that a god is impossible. It seems to me the trouble for empiricists is that in the absence of any data from outside the universe it's impossible to deny a vanishing possibility that the universe's beginning had any conceivable given cause. We simply can't say.

Such an admission can hardly be seen as an admission that an anthropomorphic schizoid-combo god of the jewish/gnostic/pythagorean variety has any serious chance of being the initial 'cause' of a universe the scope of which we cannot conceive. Rather, agnosticism in relation to possible first cause should be taken to mean the person does not feel they have adequate evidence either way.

If you have evidence against possible supernatural first cause, or an argument that annuls the need for evidence, it would be nice to actually hear what it is. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Please roll out your argument that a god is impossible. It seems to me the trouble for empiricists is that in the absence of any data from outside the universe it's impossible to deny a vanishing possibility that the universe's beginning had any conceivable given cause. We simply can't say.

Such an admission can hardly be seen as an admission that an anthropomorphic schizoid-combo god of the jewish/gnostic/pythagorean variety has any serious chance of being the initial 'cause' of a universe the scope of which we cannot conceive. Rather, agnosticism in relation to possible first cause should be taken to mean the person does not feel they have adequate evidence either way.

If you have evidence against possible supernatural first cause, or an argument that annuls the need for evidence, it would be nice to actually hear what it is. 

That'll probably sail right over his head.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I'm not sure that he

I'm not sure that he understands what the atheist position is.  He's making the same semantic mistake that Jean was making.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

Produce the physical evidence that 1 and 2 are correct assertions. Until you do that there is nothing to debunk. They are just the preferred beliefs of some idiot or other.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote: SO

IntegratedPost wrote:

 

SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

you say that as if things "begin to exist" everyday.  the only things that actually "exist" are matter and energy (and dark matter and dark energy, etc.).  anything that "begins to exist" in our plane of reality is just a modification of those things that already exist.  a chair doesn't "begin to exist," except on a psychological level.  it is made from material that already exists.

we as humans have never truly encountered "nothing."  we've never seen anything "begin to exist," therefore we don't know if it happens or not.

for someone who claims to scoff at the rationality of mathematics, you sure do love your axioms, don't you?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you say that as

iwbiek wrote:

you say that as if things "begin to exist" everyday.  the only things that actually "exist" are matter and energy (and dark matter and dark energy, etc.).  anything that "begins to exist" in our plane of reality is just a modification of those things that already exist.  a chair doesn't "begin to exist," except on a psychological level.  it is made from material that already exists.

we as humans have never truly encountered "nothing."  we've never seen anything "begin to exist," therefore we don't know if it happens or not.

for someone who claims to scoff at the rationality of mathematics, you sure do love your axioms, don't you?

Good point, I never really thought of it that way but now that I think about it, it seems incredibly obvious. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
I'd jump in on this

I'd jump in on this discussion but the group is giving such a good thrashing I'll just sit back and watch the fun.

Please continue.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:iwbiek

Beyond Saving wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

you say that as if things "begin to exist" everyday.  the only things that actually "exist" are matter and energy (and dark matter and dark energy, etc.).  anything that "begins to exist" in our plane of reality is just a modification of those things that already exist.  a chair doesn't "begin to exist," except on a psychological level.  it is made from material that already exists.

we as humans have never truly encountered "nothing."  we've never seen anything "begin to exist," therefore we don't know if it happens or not.

for someone who claims to scoff at the rationality of mathematics, you sure do love your axioms, don't you?

Good point, I never really thought of it that way but now that I think about it, it seems incredibly obvious. 

Such is the world of buddhism

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh yes

iwbiek wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

 

SO how would you debunk it? Just curious.  Here's the Argument for God as WLC puts it:

P(1): Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

P(2): The universe began to exist.

P(3): Therefore, the universe has a cause.

HOW do you refute this?

you say that as if things "begin to exist" everyday.  the only things that actually "exist" are matter and energy (and dark matter and dark energy, etc.).  anything that "begins to exist" in our plane of reality is just a modification of those things that already exist.  a chair doesn't "begin to exist," except on a psychological level.  it is made from material that already exists.

we as humans have never truly encountered "nothing."  we've never seen anything "begin to exist," therefore we don't know if it happens or not.

for someone who claims to scoff at the rationality of mathematics, you sure do love your axioms, don't you?

 

'Nothing' is a reification of an unobservable human concept, a paradox that can only exist in the mind of a something. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:I'd

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'd jump in on this discussion but the group is giving such a good thrashing I'll just sit back and watch the fun.

Please continue.

 

I'll open up the popcorn stand and the bar. Drinks are half-price for the first 100 posts. After that, I'll have to go back to charging regular for the booze and beer.

Popcorn is free.

Let the show go on.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:you say that as

iwbiek wrote:

you say that as if things "begin to exist" everyday.  the only things that actually "exist" are matter and energy (and dark matter and dark energy, etc.).  anything that "begins to exist" in our plane of reality is just a modification of those things that already exist.  a chair doesn't "begin to exist," except on a psychological level.  it is made from material that already exists.

we as humans have never truly encountered "nothing."  we've never seen anything "begin to exist," therefore we don't know if it happens or not.

for someone who claims to scoff at the rationality of mathematics, you sure do love your axioms, don't you?

Can't believe anyone still takes the Kalaam argument like it is some sort of proof.

Of course, can't believe anyone takes a piece of shit like William Lane Craig seriously, either.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:WLC is

IntegratedPost wrote:

WLC is extremely intelligent

You have to be fucking kidding us. WLC, the genocide apologist and the professional bullshitter who wrote Rational Faith. I couldn't even get through the first chapter before my brain started bleeding from the abuse.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:IntegratedPost

KSMB wrote:

IntegratedPost wrote:

WLC is extremely intelligent

You have to be fucking kidding us. WLC, the genocide apologist and the professional bullshitter who wrote Rational Faith. I couldn't even get through the first chapter before my brain started bleeding from the abuse.

LMAO!!!!

Thanks I needed that...


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

I'd jump in on this discussion but the group is giving such a good thrashing I'll just sit back and watch the fun.

Please continue.

 

I'll open up the popcorn stand and the bar. Drinks are half-price for the first 100 posts. After that, I'll have to go back to charging regular for the booze and beer.

Popcorn is free.

Let the show go on.

I have a coupon from Groupon that says, "2 for 1 if any one posts a message saying WLC is intelligent". Can I double up on this or is the coupon no good?

 


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
Whoa whoa whoa, I think we

Whoa whoa whoa, I think we can take it down a few notches here, guys.

It's a new forum and I was playing devil's advocate to see just what kinda thinkers you are. I understand that God is impossible, I was just testing the waters.

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Whoa

IntegratedPost wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think we can take it down a few notches here, guys.
 

why?  you asked us how we could refute something and got several responses.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Whoa

IntegratedPost wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think we can take it down a few notches here, guys.

Why ?

IntegratedPost wrote:


It's a new forum and I was playing devil's advocate to see just what kinda thinkers you are. I understand that God is impossible, I was just testing the waters.

I say your full of shit.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote: Whoa

IntegratedPost wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think we can take it down a few notches here, guys.

It's a new forum and I was playing devil's advocate to see just what kinda thinkers you are. I understand that God is impossible, I was just testing the waters.


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

IntegratedPost wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa, I think we can take it down a few notches here, guys.

No one told you this was a friendly forum. You are only known by what you post. We know you are a scientific illiterate.

Quote:
It's a new forum and I was playing devil's advocate to see just what kinda thinkers you are. I understand that God is impossible, I was just testing the waters.

And that is not true. You came on strong with affiramtive statements out of your ass or Craig's ass that you did not understand. You posted nonsense like about shapes that has no foundation any place. Worse yet you stuck with it after the first "test results" were in meaning you intended to argue the case after getting the test results.

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


IntegratedPost
IntegratedPost's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2013-01-01
User is offlineOffline
"No one told you this was a

"No one told you this was a friendly forum. You are only known by what you post. We know you are a scientific illiterate."

YOU are the moron who cannot back up any of his claims.  Why don't you actually define your words and respond directly to my criticisms of MathPhyz in the other thread? It's because you are a religious zealot who can only operate by means of rhetoric and appeal to popularity.  You have NO arguments.

Like everyone else in the thread, you'll just TROLL or post LINKS to other websites, rather than backing up what YOU say with your own words.

 

For Rational Science and Philosophy:
www.integratedpost.com


blacklight915
atheist
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:Like

IntegratedPost wrote:

Like everyone else in the thread, you'll just TROLL or post LINKS to other websites, rather than backing up what YOU say with your own words.

If someone has a good argument that supports my position, I see no reason I shouldn't make use of it--provided I cite it properly and give credit where it's due.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:If

blacklight915 wrote:

If someone has a good argument that supports my position, I see no reason I shouldn't make use of it--provided I cite it properly and give credit where it's due.

 

Isn't it rather comical how he engages in the very behavior that he claims to dislike so strongly about all of us ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
IntegratedPost wrote:"No one

IntegratedPost wrote:

"No one told you this was a friendly forum. You are only known by what you post. We know you are a scientific illiterate."

YOU are the moron who cannot back up any of his claims.  Why don't you actually define your words and respond directly to my criticisms of MathPhyz in the other thread? It's because you are a religious zealot who can only operate by means of rhetoric and appeal to popularity.  You have NO arguments.

Like everyone else in the thread, you'll just TROLL or post LINKS to other websites, rather than backing up what YOU say with your own words.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

If someone has a good argument that supports my position, I see no reason I shouldn't make use of it--provided I cite it properly and give credit where it's due.

 

Isn't it rather comical how he engages in the very behavior that he claims to dislike so strongly about all of us ?

That is what trolls do!

 


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
About Mr Student Loans (in his own words)

re ::  About Mr. Student Loans

The_Questioner_himself wrote:

Welcome! My name is [Deleted for Security reasons]  and I started The Integrated Post as a outlet to promote rigorous philosophy as the methodology for creating a better world. I want to focus on the psychology of metacognition, or thinking about "how to think", analysis of current issues, and most importantly to push an agenda of philosophical community activism so that we can push this conversation forward toward success! I currently work full time at a famously good ice cream parlor while I pay off the student loans I incurred paying for an education in philosophy. I like to spend time reading and studying all philosophical topics, questioning as many people on their views as I can, and working to achieve even greater personal integrity to virtue every day.

  Quote  is Above


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:re :: 

danatemporary wrote:

re ::  About Mr. Student Loans

The_Questioner_himself wrote:

Welcome! My name is [Deleted for Security reasons]  and I started The Integrated Post as a outlet to promote rigorous philosophy as the methodology for creating a better world. I want to focus on the psychology of metacognition, or thinking about "how to think", analysis of current issues, and most importantly to push an agenda of philosophical community activism so that we can push this conversation forward toward success! I currently work full time at a famously good ice cream parlor while I pay off the student loans I incurred paying for an education in philosophy. I like to spend time reading and studying all philosophical topics, questioning as many people on their views as I can, and working to achieve even greater personal integrity to virtue every day.

  Quote  is Above

 

What is the point of your post?


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
If taken at face value ..(what game is he playing at)

 RE :: Due to so many conflicting views on IntegratedPost, this might be of some assistance to everyone, K?

Quote:
What is your point with this post

 It's hard to get a fix on this guy. It would have been better if I had left this thread alone. It is not as disparagingly insulting as it may appear (to be). I think my point was to provide additional information. All in the hopes of better understanding what 'game' he (IntegratedPost) is playing at. That is, If this can be taken at face value, in his statement (I posted). It indicates what might be going on in the other Thread, instead of everyone wildly guessing ABOUT the undertaking he attempted in the first place (in the Other Thread). He failed to clarify 'Why' he began all this in the first place. Perhaps this will tell us more; so I was sure to include it here.

 


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: RE ::

danatemporary wrote:

 RE :: Due to so many conflicting views on IntegratedPost, this might be of some assistance to everyone, K?

Quote:
What is your point with this post

 It's hard to get a fix on this guy. It would have been better if I had left this thread alone. It is not as disparagingly insulting as it may appear (to be). I think my point was to provide additional information. All in the hopes of better understanding what 'game' he (IntegratedPost) is playing at. That is, If this can be taken at face value, in his statement (I posted). It indicates what might be going on in the other Thread, instead of everyone wildly guessing ABOUT the undertaking he attempted in the first place (in the Other Thread). He failed to clarify 'Why' he began all this in the first place. Perhaps this will tell us more; so I was sure to include it here.

 

The original thread was about WLC and how whacked out he was; but at a later point IP showed up.

I had gone to the site after IP's first post and I stopped looking as my intelligence was being dulled by the content of the site. As I previously stated the two items I expected to see but did not find was "9/11 conspiracies and NASA faked the moon landings".

I suspected two motives of IP's posts, 1) to be a troll and see what trouble could be stirred up, 2) some one serious who believes in the tripe they are posting or 3) a little of both (1 and 2).

Either way I was staying out of the thread directly because I am already bored with such ideas. I occasionally posted using some animated gifs and replies because I found them humorous.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Either

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Either way I was staying out of the thread directly because I am already bored with such ideas. I occasionally posted using some animated gifs and replies because I found them humorous.

 

I am pretty much the same way when it comes to trolls these days.

I do not know if it is because after so many back and forths with trolls and wasting my time with them, I generally just throw manners, etiquette and any debating tactics out the window with trolls. I just don't have any patience with them.

I am all for discussion and debate, but when it is obvious horseshit, then I just start sending tripe back to them.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Either way I was staying out of the thread directly because I am already bored with such ideas. I occasionally posted using some animated gifs and replies because I found them humorous.

 

I am pretty much the same way when it comes to trolls these days.

I do not know if it is because after so many back and forths with trolls and wasting my time with them, I generally just throw manners, etiquette and any debating tactics out the window with trolls. I just don't have any patience with them.

I am all for discussion and debate, but when it is obvious horseshit, then I just start sending tripe back to them.

I agree.