Religion & Morality

[Gideon]

I say this with all due respect, but as someone who has extensively studied and practiced debating and the application of logic, Craig has demolished some of the most intelligent and educated men in the world. Could you beat him? Sure, anything is possible (pun intended) and Craig is by no means infallible. But to say that you could with great certainty isn't something you should expect others to believe.

[S2M]

I say this with all due respect, but as someone who has extensively studied and practiced debating and the application of logic, Craig has demolished some of the most intelligent and educated men in the world. Could you beat him? Sure, anything is possible (pun intended) and Craig is by no means infallible. But to say that you could with great certainty isn't something you should expect others to believe.

Also, with all due respect...Craig is making a huge assumption with his logic - and that is; that what he is arguing is, in fact, true. His logic, that people seem to think is so airtight, is based on a book, that most people - even believers, think is allogorical. His arguments presuppose that his source material is correct. Now his logic MAY be sound within the confines of his source material. That is, if someone argues that a god can be a loving god, and also send people to hell...but if he sticks to scripture, and second-hand sources,cand NOT on actual philosophical structures - he is just relying on someone else's ideas.

[conversationpc]

I say this with all due respect, but as someone who has extensively studied and practiced debating and the application of logic, Craig has demolished some of the most intelligent and educated men in the world. Could you beat him? Sure, anything is possible (pun intended) and Craig is by no means infallible. But to say that you could with great certainty isn't something you should expect others to believe.

Also, with all due respect...Craig is making a huge assumption with his logic - and that is; that what he is arguing is, in fact, true. His logic, that people seem to think is so airtight, is based on a book, that most people - even believers, think is allogorical. His arguments presuppose that his source material is correct. Now his logic MAY be sound within the confines of his source material. That is, if someone argues that a god can be a loving god, and also send people to hell...but if he sticks to scripture, and second-hand sources,cand NOT on actual philosophical structures - he is just relying on someone else's ideas.

No one thinks his logic is airtight. For that matter, there isn't a person alive with airtight logic.

[conversationpc]

Self-education can be quite effective if you know how to use the knowledge correctly. But connection with one's audience is the most powerful weapon you can have. Craig just doesn't... watch the way he handles the question from the girl at 6:52, and follow it all the way thru. You can tell she's having problems parsing his response, and finally has to clarify her question at 9:47.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa2fHkpOfoA

Be better than that, and in the minds of the audience, you can come out on top.

I don't think he really handled that question ineffectively at all. He asked for clarification on what she was asking and he got it and he answered the question about as well as it could be answered.

Also, the audio on that video is horrible. It's all panned to the left and is barely audible even at the highest volume.

[conversationpc]

Sam Harris getting rick-rolled during a debate against Craig...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ABkDDRm ... re=related

[Rip Rokken]

I say this with all due respect, but as someone who has extensively studied and practiced debating and the application of logic, Craig has demolished some of the most intelligent and educated men in the world. Could you beat him? Sure, anything is possible (pun intended) and Craig is by no means infallible. But to say that you could with great certainty isn't something you should expect others to believe.

No... not with great certainty, but a fair amount of confidence based on what I've seen from him, and from my own experience. And I'd never expect anyone who doesn't know me really well to believe it. When I watch Craig in particular (and it wouldn't matter which side of the issue he's on), the only things that really impress me are:

1) His seemingly effortless and fluid style.
2) His breadth of knowledge on his points, and his ability to produce endless quotes and references like fishes and loaves from a basket.
3) His ability to stay on offense with his message - he bats aside most of the opponents' challenges rather than really address them, then returns to offense. A common Craig defense is, "I'd be happy to discuss the problem of evil with _____, but it's simply not relevant to the topic of tonight's debate", or "I highly recommend a book written on that topic by ________".

But those things are also also his biggest weaknesses... The counter to each point above being,

1) He often comes off as very scripted and robotic - very mechanical. His opponents are fighting a debating machine, and I still don't blame Dawkins for not wanting to engage him.
2) His topics soar far above the grasp of the average listener, and for the most part, he pretty much keeps them far out in the cosmos. Daniel Dennett has commented on this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4
3) No matter how gracefully he does it, ducking is ducking... and when he does it against an opponent like Sam Harris, it's laughable -- that's where he really starts looking like a mechanical monkey. Example - Harris made an excellent case for the immorality of the biblical God and the pathology of Craig's "Divine Command Theory" belief that anything God does is inherently good and moral, because God by definition is absolutely good and moral. Craig returns by making blanket statements of faith like S2M mentioned -- not defending against Harris' points, but just firmly asserting the goodness and morality of God as a truth. So case closed -- whatever God decides to do is good and moral by definition because he's God. I've heard that defense used many times in my own discussions with people.

Me? I have no formal debate experience at all, but I do have some excellent past experience winning cases against people a whole lot more skilled and knowledgeable than I -- most of it were hearings and court cases, and it's just not that hard to do if I know I'm right. I have a gift for deductive reasoning and a mega-keen B.S. detector, which are probably the main reasons I'm in the boat with religion I'm in today.

When I was 18, I was about to be let go from my first job over something that I absolutely was not guilty of, and they suggested that I accept termination rather than resignation as I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits. I replied that I loved my job, but knew I hadn't done what they were accusing me of, so they'd have to terminate me. Once I applied for unemployee benefits, I got denied as the person I'd met with countered that I'd been "fired for misconduct". That pissed me off... I appealed, and showed up to the hearing to find the department head and 2 of the company's attorneys in the small meeting room shooting the breeze and joking about something. Meeting got underway, and they made their very clear case that I was fired for misconduct, and shouldn't be allowed benefits. I just sat back and let them have their say - I'm sure they wondered why I even showed up. Then the mediator asked if I had any response, and I did. Then I calmly stated my own side of the story, got the department head to admit that he's suggested that I take termination so that I could receive benefits ("Yes, but, but..."), then produced a copy of my exit evaluation where they'd rated me very highly, and checkmarked YES beside "Recommend for rehire?" Then in went into the definition of misconduct as being a "willful act with malicious intent", and asked if they were truly asserting that I'd willfully and maliciously done what they had written me up and fired me over, and they had to admit "no". Case closed - I very calmly and respectfully cleaned their clocks, and got my unemployment benefits. I politely shook their hands, then left. Best thing later that day was a friend calling me from work to tell me that they seemed very pissed off when they returned from work. Another department manager (who was having an affair with the department head, lol) asked him how it went, and his response was "Not good."

When I was 23 and my first wife filed for divorce, her attorney tried to trick me into thinking I'd filed my complaint response past the deadline, and that he'd ask for a judgment by default (meaning I couldn't even state my case in court), and also that I pay her attorney's fees. I tried to explain that I thought I was within the time, that the Thanksgiving holiday didn't count, and he was quite insulting in his reply - said something like, "Well, I guess that's why you're wearing hospital scrubs, and not practicing law." What an a-hole... and whoever this guy was, he was reputed to be one of the toughest divorce attorneys in town. I decided not to even hire an attorney, but just represented myself. Buddied up with a friend in my one of my college classes who was also a paralegal, and she helped me research the law and I found that he was indeed full of crap... I just played dumb until court day, then showed up. They tried to first ask for a judgment by default for the reasons given, and the judge asked if I had an objection. I said I did, relayed the story of what that attorney had tried to get me to believe, and that I felt he'd intentionally tried to deceive me. I then recited the portion of state law that I'd memorized, and followed it up by telling the attorney "that I was proud to wear scrubs and work in a profession where I didn't have to lie to help people." The judge was pretty lenient with my comment, lol -- he said, "It appears he's right - I'm going to deny judgment by default". The attorney's face was so red.

Next, they tried to make a case that I'd physically abused my wife, producing a Polaroid her mother had been keeping on hand for over a year of her sporting a black eye (strangely with a slight smile, btw). She had another slutty friend of hers also give testimony that I was some major-league religious a-hole who tried to control her every move. I got to cross-examine both of them. With probing questions, I got my wife to admit that she'd acted as if she was committing suicide that night, had locked herself in the bathroom after claiming she'd downed a bottle of pills, then charged out and physically attacked me when I tried to call 911. After she ripped the phone cord out of the wall on my 3rd call attempt, I pinned her down on the ground, then slapped her once to stop her. Unfortunately it was enough to give her a bit of a black eye, which she refused to try to cover up with makeup when she went to work. She loved being seen as a "victim". Anyway, she admitted to every bit of the story and the judge wasn't impressed that she'd omitted so much, or that her manipulative mom had taken that photo and kept it for so long. As for her friend, I got her to admit that her and another friend didn't like the fact that my wife had stopped drinking and smoking after we got married, and wasn't their party buddy anymore. Then she admitted that she and that same friend had tried to come up with a plot where one of them would try to seduce me, because if I fell for it, it would be the only thing that would convince my wife to leave me. That chick had a mask of hate on her face when I was thru, and the judge said to her, "Well young lady, I think if my daughter had friends like you, I'd be concerned about who she was hanging out with, too."

The judge went ahead and granted the divorce, but then her attorney asked about the matter of fees, and the judge said, "I think everyone can pay their own fees this time."

The first time I ever hired an attorney, it was in a small claims case against a guy who had backed into my car, then tried to deny doing it. Even worse, after I brought it to his wife's attention, and the fact that the paint from his car was in the damage on mine (took photos, they were matching injuries), I woke up the next day to find someone had taken a Brillo pad and scuffed all their paint off my car. That pissed me off... my attorney was actually doing me a favor in exchange for some work I'd done for him, and it was supposed to be pretty simple. But when he cross-examined the guy, he just missed some major lapses in the guy's story -- like the fact that on the stand, he claimed that he'd been in a different town that night than he mentioned when interviewed by the police. I ended up being the one to point those things out, and it may have been the thing that won the case, who knows? $1,500 is $1,500.

I don't know, I just have that type of deductive mind I guess, and a champion-grade B.S. sniffer, so I guess I don't see what's so difficult about debating William Lane Craig. He's kinda like a Mortal Kombat opponent that may seem intimidating at first, but once you spot the strike points, it's pretty elementary.

[conversationpc]

Great points, Rip, and I'd love to have seen those folks from your company and the lawyer get force fed their own medicine, but it's one thing to find codified law defending your position and use it against someone and it's quite another to use logic and make your point in a debate where you can't just use codified law in defending your position.

[conversationpc]

When I was 18, I was about to be let go from my first job over something that I absolutely was not guilty of, and they suggested that I accept termination rather than resignation as I'd be eligible for unemployment benefits. I replied that I loved my job, but knew I hadn't done what they were accusing me of, so they'd have to terminate me. Once I applied for unemployee benefits, I got denied as the person I'd met with countered that I'd been "fired for misconduct". That pissed me off... I appealed, and showed up to the hearing to find the department head and 2 of the company's attorneys in the small meeting room shooting the breeze and joking about something. Meeting got underway, and they made their very clear case that I was fired for misconduct, and shouldn't be allowed benefits. I just sat back and let them have their say - I'm sure they wondered why I even showed up. Then the mediator asked if I had any response, and I did. Then I calmly stated my own side of the story, got the department head to admit that he's suggested that I take termination so that I could receive benefits ("Yes, but, but..."), then produced a copy of my exit evaluation where they'd rated me very highly, and checkmarked YES beside "Recommend for rehire?" Then in went into the definition of misconduct as being a "willful act with malicious intent", and asked if they were truly asserting that I'd willfully and maliciously done what they had written me up and fired me over, and they had to admit "no". Case closed - I very calmly and respectfully cleaned their clocks, and got my unemployment benefits. I politely shook their hands, then left. Best thing later that day was a friend calling me from work to tell me that they seemed very pissed off when they returned from work. Another department manager (who was having an affair with the department head, lol) asked him how it went, and his response was "Not good."

This is off the topic but...

Back around Thanksgiving of last year, I had a run-in with the President of my company. There was something I had a question about on our software that I didn't know. They've always told me to ask questions if I don't know something, which is exactly what I did. She responded with a "You should know this" and how disappointed she was at my lack of knowledge about "this very basic issue". Ummm...OOOOOOKAAAAYYYYYYY. My response was not over the top and I simply expressed that I was disappointed in her response and that I had been led to believe that I could ask questions if I needed an answer. After all, my job is to provide timely and accurate answers to our clients and, if I hadn't asked the question, I wouldn't have been doing my job. By doing what I was asked to do, I was attempting to do my job effectively.

Well, because of my response, I was written up, put on probation, and told that I would be terminated if I didn't improve. The write-up was very cleverly worded, to the point where I felt like there was no way I could make a case against it and still keep my job. I did manage to get three of the 9 or 10 points on the write-up removed because they were simply false accusations (they threw in extra stuff that my temporary manager had made up at the time). I had physical proof that they were not true. However, due to the way the rest of the write-up was written and that I couldn't afford to lose my job at the time (we're in better a better financial situation now) and per the advice of a trusted relative, I agreed to sign the write-up.

Unfortunately, this President has gotten away with that kind of behavior before and there are other managers in the company that act similarly. To this day, I sort of regret having signed the write-up but, on the other hand, I know my family would have been in a bad situation and likely would've lost our home and had to move out of the area if I hadn't.

Anyway, they actually extended my probationary period till the end of January and, that month, I ended up winning the award in our department for our rewards program and they took me off probation. Since then, I've either won the rewards program or been in the top three at least two or three times. My coworkers told me that I'm the only employee they can remember that's ever gone on probation and not actually gotten fired.

All this is to say that, yes, I was innocent of what I was accused of but I think there are cases where you may need to swallow your pride and accept some consequences that maybe aren't deserved. That being said, I loved your story. I love it when the "little" guy slays the giant.

[Rip Rokken]

Great points, Rip, and I'd love to have seen those folks from your company and the lawyer get force fed their own medicine, but it's one thing to find codified law defending your position and use it against someone and it's quite another to use logic and make your point in a debate where you can't just use codified law in defending your position.

A little epilogue to that story... a year or so later, that department director had a stroke or something and I heard he was in ICU. I went to visit him in the hospital and sat with him for a short while, and I think he was surprised to see me, considering what had happened. I don't know, but just didn't hesitate when I got the news - I worked in his dept for 3.5 years, ya know. None of that stuff mattered to me, and I didn't bring it up. I was glad I had the chance - I heard he passed away a few years later.

You're right about your point -- besides making my physical case, I'd appeal quite a bit to personal subjective experience - there are things that I believe no believer can deny in their own experience, and I feel those things are evidence against what my debate partner's case. Little example -- the "still small voice", or the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I don't think any Christian can deny that there have been times where they felt with strong conviction that God was speaking to them, but later found out thru clarity of circumstance that they'd misinterpreted the scenario -- and therefore, whatever they had thought was the voice of God couldn't have been. From there, you have to ask yourself - how can you ever truly know when God is speaking to you, and even further, why doesn't (or can't) God speak to people in ways that can't be misinterpreted, instead of thru basic thought impulses which could originate from anywhere in our minds?

[S2M]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

[majik]

, why doesn't (or can't) God speak to people in ways that can't be misinterpreted, instead of thru basic thought impulses which could originate from anywhere in our minds?

Good point, why so, until its realised that sound is happening prior to interpretation. The sound is real and unmistakeable, originates outside of mind but the interpretation which is thought based is always after the fact. Same applies to seeing, first the seeing then the thought which comes after the fact. Thought may well be such a basic impulse that its always late to the party and is an outdated mode, a basic useful tool perhaps but one not capable of correct or accurate interpretation.

[Duncan]

Not believing in something isn't a theory.

So, you hate life then don't you?

Nothing else matters but here?

Ok, with ya. Let's rape and kill and not get caught!!!!!

I have no idea what really happens past this, but have a beautiful family and never wanted a child and spoke BIG TIME about that on this forum years ago and was proven wrong.

Enjoy your life, and even if you feel this way, try being more optimistic.

I love life, but my life is based on reality not fiction.

Things other than the here and now do matter to me. I believe in family and protecting the environment for future generations together with scientific edeavour to improve the lives of all humans.

I don't think it's a good idea to rape and kill. The bible doesn't have a problem with it though.

I'm happy that you have a beautiful family. You are lucky. Many aren't so fortunate.

I am very optimistic.

I can do all these things without religion and a belief in the supernatural..

[Duncan]

Next, they tried to make a case that I'd physically abused my wife, producing a Polaroid her mother had been keeping on hand for over a year of her sporting a black eye (strangely with a slight smile, btw). She had another slutty friend of hers also give testimony that I was some major-league religious a-hole who tried to control her every move. I got to cross-examine both of them. With probing questions, I got my wife to admit that she'd acted as if she was committing suicide that night, had locked herself in the bathroom after claiming she'd downed a bottle of pills, then charged out and physically attacked me when I tried to call 911. After she ripped the phone cord out of the wall on my 3rd call attempt, I pinned her down on the ground, then slapped her once to stop her. Unfortunately it was enough to give her a bit of a black eye, which she refused to try to cover up with makeup when she went to work. She loved being seen as a "victim". Anyway, she admitted to every bit of the story and the judge wasn't impressed that she'd omitted so much, or that her manipulative mom had taken that photo and kept it for so long. As for her friend, I got her to admit that her and another friend didn't like the fact that my wife had stopped drinking and smoking after we got married, and wasn't their party buddy anymore. Then she admitted that she and that same friend had tried to come up with a plot where one of them would try to seduce me, because if I fell for it, it would be the only thing that would convince my wife to leave me. That chick had a mask of hate on her face when I was thru, and the judge said to her, "Well young lady, I think if my daughter had friends like you, I'd be concerned about who she was hanging out with, too."

The judge went ahead and granted the divorce, but then her attorney asked about the matter of fees, and the judge said, "I think everyone can pay their own fees this time."

Judge Judy's great isn't she?

[conversationpc]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

The key word is "previously". He's been challenged to a debate again obviously but instead of agreeing to it, he retreats to the safety and comfort of his keyboard to attack Craig from there instead.

[parfait]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

The key word is "previously". He's been challenged to a debate again obviously but instead of agreeing to it, he retreats to the safety and comfort of his keyboard to attack Craig from there instead.

Who wins in a debate is irrelevant, when one side (the atheist side) has a shitload of evidence and observations going for them, and the other side is basing their info on a book written ages ago, by a bunch of power hungry numbnuts.

Christianity is just another religion based on earlier myths and beliefs, so full of fallacies that it'll make your head hurt. We're in 2011 now. We don't God to explain how things works anymore; because now we actually know.

[conversationpc]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

The key word is "previously". He's been challenged to a debate again obviously but instead of agreeing to it, he retreats to the safety and comfort of his keyboard to attack Craig from there instead.

Who wins in a debate is irrelevant, when one side (the atheist side) has a shitload of evidence and observations going for them, and the other side is basing their info on a book written ages ago, by a bunch of different guys.

Christianity is just another religion based on earlier myths and beliefs, so full of fallacies that it'll make your head hurt. We're in 2011 now. We don't God to explain how things works anymore; because now we actually know.

So IF what you say is true then Dawkins should have no problem coming out from hiding under his desk with his keyboard and debating the guy.

[parfait]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

The key word is "previously". He's been challenged to a debate again obviously but instead of agreeing to it, he retreats to the safety and comfort of his keyboard to attack Craig from there instead.

Who wins in a debate is irrelevant, when one side (the atheist side) has a shitload of evidence and observations going for them, and the other side is basing their info on a book written ages ago, by a bunch of different guys.

Christianity is just another religion based on earlier myths and beliefs, so full of fallacies that it'll make your head hurt. We're in 2011 now. We don't God to explain how things works anymore; because now we actually know.

So IF what you say is true then Dawkins should have no problem coming out from hiding under his desk with his keyboard and debating the guy.

There's no IFs. That's how it is. Dawkins argument is sound: He doesn't take on people who's only claim to fame is being a debater. Craig has based his later career perfecting his arguments like a robot; but when the word evidence or fact shows ups, then he cowers behind his fancy metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

One part deals with reality. The other part is trying all he can to evade and deny.

[Greg]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

[conversationpc]

I was just watching a video about Richard Dawkins' refusal to debate William Lane Craig. I find it interesting that he'll agree to debate intellectual lightweights like Kirk Cameron and then make fun of him when he doesn't show up but he's refusing to show up at all against someone who everyone agrees is intellectually challenging. Heck, even other atheists have spoken up and said that they're bothered by Dawkins' refusal to show up.

Just finished watching a debate between Craig and Krauss...in it, Craig refers to his debate with Dawkins. So they've debated....just thought I'd lay that little tidbit out there....

The key word is "previously". He's been challenged to a debate again obviously but instead of agreeing to it, he retreats to the safety and comfort of his keyboard to attack Craig from there instead.

Who wins in a debate is irrelevant, when one side (the atheist side) has a shitload of evidence and observations going for them, and the other side is basing their info on a book written ages ago, by a bunch of different guys.

Christianity is just another religion based on earlier myths and beliefs, so full of fallacies that it'll make your head hurt. We're in 2011 now. We don't God to explain how things works anymore; because now we actually know.

So IF what you say is true then Dawkins should have no problem coming out from hiding under his desk with his keyboard and debating the guy.

There's no IFs. That's how it is. Dawkins argument is sound: He doesn't take on people who's only claim to fame is being a debater. Craig has based his later career perfecting his arguments like a robot; but when the word evidence or fact shows ups, then he cowers behind his fancy metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

One part deals with reality. The other part is trying all he can to evade and deny.

Again, IF what you say is true, Dawkins should have no problem coming out from behind the keyboard, manning up, and showing up.

[parfait]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

[S2M]

I watched another debate on Monday afternoon between Hitch and Rabbi Wolpe. To be honest, I seriously think the Rabbi Wolpe could talk circles around Craig. Craig's robot-like, pure rote style does him in. If you get a chance to watch this debate, please do...it runs about 1:45, and takes place in a synagogue.

[Behshad]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

I think these days we see more humans being made from human beings rather thank humans being made from monkeis!

Go.Fuck.Yourself!

[S2M]

Religious debaters could easily strenghthen their case by responding to Hitch by saying this when presented with the science argument....

"I agree, science is wonderful. Gravity, Physics...etc. science doesn't prove the non-existence of "god". Who do you think set all those rules in motion? Science proves his existence".

I don't buy that reasoning, but I'm just amazed that no one's argued it from that standpoint....

[Duncan]

Religious debaters could easily strenghthen their case by responding to Hitch by saying this when presented with the science argument....

"I agree, science is wonderful. Gravity, Physics...etc. science doesn't prove the non-existence of "god". Who do you think set all those rules in motion? Science proves his existence".


I don't buy that reasoning, but I'm just amazed that no one's argued it from that standpoint....

Plenty have. Look up Dawkins debate with John Lennox.

[S2M]

In the Hitchens-Wolpe debate, the moderator asked each debater which argument from the other side was most compelling. Wolpe answered that since he thinks we are spiritual beings in physical shells - after a relative suffered an aneurysm, and basically lost all speech...and ability to eat - he couldn't resolve this in his beliefs. He didn't think we should be constrained in these physical manners....

Hitch couldn't come to grips with the "fine tuning" position...that is, if any of these mathematical concepts were infentesimally different one way or another - we wouldn't be here. For instance, if the earth was say...100,000 further or closer to the sun...or even a small percentage bigger, or smaller in diameter. He admitted that gave him pause....

[Greg]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

Yet, it's the same argument you Atheists have been clinging to for years.

[Behshad]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

Yet, it's the same argument you Atheists have been clinging to for years.

What do you expect from someone who worships a full bladder ?

[Greg]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

Yet, it's the same argument you Atheists have been clinging to for years.

What do you expect from someone who worships a full bladder ?

May the gods of bladder keep me humble and regular!

[majik]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

Yet, it's the same argument you Atheists have been clinging to for years.

Does gravity work better when the theory is known or does it work less when the theory is not known. Its a word that points to an unknowable power that is only truly known experientially and can only be theorised and revised conceptually.
God creating woman out of man's rib is an ancient theory/concept from a time when it was believed the earth was flat, even God is a concept about an unknowable power. God is a misunderstood word that only points to source that can never be known intellectually but it can be experienced, the knowing is in the experiencing. What is light, no scientific mind can say, only that its photons and what is a photon.... it can't be explained but it is known in experience.
What knows this experience ? consciousness does and what is consciousness ? its an unknowable mysterious power that you evidently are. Everything is known in consciousness which is another word for God. Consciousness is the source of all even the concepts God and gravity.

[parfait]

So, the big hoopla against Christianity is that Christians base their evidence on a book that was written by men, who are by nature, flawed. This is the biggest argument Atheists present. Yet, science is studied and tested by, and its textbooks written by, aliens? No, men. The same flawed species. Hhhmmmm......

You can't be serious.

One says the woman was created out of a man's rib, that God made the universe in 6 days and rested on the 7th and that Noah brought all the earth's animals on a fucking wooden boat. The other side has the theory of gravity, evolution and modern genetics (just to mention a tiny, tiny few).

Dumbest. argument. ever.

Yet, it's the same argument you Atheists have been clinging to for years.

Does gravity work better when the theory is known or does it work less when the theory is not known. Its a word that points to an unknowable power that is only truly known experientially and can only be theorised and revised conceptually.
God creating woman out of man's rib is an ancient theory/concept from a time when it was believed the earth was flat, even God is a concept about an unknowable power. God is a misunderstood word that only points to source that can never be known intellectually but it can be experienced, the knowing is in the experiencing. What is light, no scientific mind can say, only that its photons and what is a photon.... it can't be explained but it is known in experience.
What knows this experience ? consciousness does and what is consciousness ? its an unknowable mysterious power that you evidently are. Everything is known in consciousness which is another word for God. Consciousness is the source of all even the concepts God and gravity.

If the theory hadn't been known (theory of general relativity), then we wouldn't have any sort of modern cosmology, as its models are based on Einstein's equations. Of course it works better when the theory is know. Classical physics are based on Newtons theories of motion - without them we wouldn't have modern infrastructure or any sort of proper machine. Consciousness is just a term for the neuronal interactions in the brain and spine. It can be explained perfectly well through science. It's simply put electrical current, traveling between synapses by voltage differences. Your emotions are the complex psychophysiological experience of an individual's state of mind as interacting with biochemical (internal) and environmental (external) influences.

It's far from a unknowable mystery that I am. I'm the result of the insemination of a sperm cell with its own specific genome and an ovum. The creation of life is pretty awesome, but far from the mystery you make it out to be. You see, the universe/world whatever you want to call it, doesn't care if you I live or die. It's not a sentient being or some other mumbo jumbo bullshit. There's no meaning to anything. No purpose. No nothing. Religion deals with this by making up some sort of goal or purpose.