Great presentation by a guy called Jeffrey Jay Lowder. One of the few atheists who I believe could outdo someone like William Lane Craig in a debate. He is quite elaborate when it comes to analyzing logical arguments, and does it with such a high degree of objectivity, which is a breath of fresh air for me. Video is long and can get boring after a while, but it's one of those times when an atheist actually provides arguments for atheism/naturalism rather than just debunk theistic arguments.

(October 23, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Irrational Wrote: One of the few atheists who I believe could outdo someone like William Lane Craig in a debate.

Everyone having two brain cells to rub together can outdo Craig. In the eyes of Craig's followers noone can outdo Craig. And that's the crux with every debate. They're useless, since every side will claim victory. That's not an exclusive observation on religious debates. It's the same with political ones.

(October 23, 2016 at 7:18 pm)abaris Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 7:12 pm)Irrational Wrote: One of the few atheists who I believe could outdo someone like William Lane Craig in a debate.

Everyone having two brain cells to rub together can outdo Craig. In the eyes of Craig's followers noone can outdo Craig. And that's the crux with every debate. They're useless, since every side will claim victory. That's not an exclusive observation on religious debates. It's the same with political ones.

The thing with Craig is that he's really good with rhetoric and debate tactics. In terms of logic, he's also good as well, he's no idiot. The problem with him, obviously, is that he is obliged to defend arguments that are not logically sound.

(October 23, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Irrational Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 7:18 pm)abaris Wrote: Everyone having two brain cells to rub together can outdo Craig. In the eyes of Craig's followers noone can outdo Craig. And that's the crux with every debate. They're useless, since every side will claim victory. That's not an exclusive observation on religious debates. It's the same with political ones.

The thing with Craig is that he's really good with rhetoric and debate tactics. In terms of logic, he's also good as well, he's no idiot. The problem with him, obviously, is that he is obliged to defend arguments that are not logically sound.

Which is very unfortunate as it requires him to use ALL sorts of rhetorical strategy in favor of trying to make the bullshit sound reasonable, breaks my heart seeing rhetoric being misused like that.

(October 26, 2016 at 12:54 am)_Velvet_ Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Irrational Wrote: The thing with Craig is that he's really good with rhetoric and debate tactics. In terms of logic, he's also good as well, he's no idiot. The problem with him, obviously, is that he is obliged to defend arguments that are not logically sound.

Which is very unfortunate as it requires him to use ALL sorts of rhetorical strategy in favor of trying to make the bullshit sound reasonable, breaks my heart seeing rhetoric being misused like that.

It's hilarious in a sad way.

Here's another video by Jeffrey Jay Lowder that comprehensively critiques WLC's moral argument for God. Jeffrey is really good at this stuff, I see:

(October 23, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Irrational Wrote: The thing with Craig is that he's really good with rhetoric and debate tactics. In terms of logic, he's also good as well, he's no idiot. The problem with him, obviously, is that he is obliged to defend arguments that are not logically sound.

So? All the rhetoric in the world isn't worth anything if it has no substance to sustain it. It brings me back to my original point. His rhetoric alone won't bring anyone into his camp if it's sustained by obvious bullshit. It just makes his followers all the more cheerful.

(October 26, 2016 at 8:08 am)abaris Wrote:

(October 23, 2016 at 7:28 pm)Irrational Wrote: The thing with Craig is that he's really good with rhetoric and debate tactics. In terms of logic, he's also good as well, he's no idiot. The problem with him, obviously, is that he is obliged to defend arguments that are not logically sound.

So? All the rhetoric in the world isn't worth anything if it has no substance to sustain it. It brings me back to my original point. His rhetoric alone won't bring anyone into his camp if it's sustained by obvious bullshit. It just makes his followers all the more cheerful.

He won't convert those with adequate critical thinking skills. That's for sure.

(October 26, 2016 at 8:14 am)Irrational Wrote: He won't convert those with adequate critical thinking skills. That's for sure.

And that's all that matters.