And all this time I thought that Craig was just a garden variety asshole instead of a blood-thirsty scumbag.

Who knew?

(October 24, 2011 at 12:38 am)Minimalist Wrote: And all this time I thought that Craig was just a garden variety asshole instead of a blood-thirsty scumbag.

Who knew?

I've never met a Christian apologist, either online, onstage or in person, who wasn't either an idiot (see Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron) or a sleazy amoral lying pompous charlatan (most of the others). Having read the Bible, you pretty much have to be one or the other to defend it.

This bit of that article is hilarious, reminds me of the sort of thing Mark Twain would say:

Quote:But what are we to make of this attempt to turn my non-appearance into a self-promotion stunt? In the interests of transparency, I should point out that it isn't only Oxford that won't see me on the night Craig proposes to debate me in absentia: you can also see me not appear in Cambridge, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow and, if time allows, Bristol.

I guess I don't mind Dawkins' argument here, except in the fact that pretty much anyone he's likely to debate believes equally appalling things. He talks about looking forward to a pleasant conversation with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has hardly been free of controversy himself.

William Lane Craig is a major hypocrite, as if that is any surprise.

To engage in a debate, both sides need to be willing to change their mind, if shown that evidence, reasoned argument and valid logic do not support their position. If one side is not willing to change their position, then the debate is useless.

Craig fails this requirement, he has said numerous times that faith is more important than evidence:

"it is the self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit that gives us the fundamental knowledge of Christianity’s truth. Therefore, the only role left for argument and evidence to play is a subsidiary role… The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel… and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel. In light of the Spirit’s witness, only the ministerial use of reason is legitimate. Philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Reason is a tool to help us better understand and defend our faith"

Not only does this statement above invalidate his ability to engage in a formal debate, it also seems pretty hypocritical to even take part in debates based on evidence and logic, as he admits they are unimportant to his beliefs.

Not only that, he refuses to debate John Loftus (a former student of Graig's), author of such books as: 'Why I became an Atheist' and 'The Christian Delusion', for idiotic reasons.

Arguing with a creationist is like arguing with a flat-earther. Utterly pointless. Just leave'em to argue with themselves....in a very empty hall. They don't deserve any kind of attention, too stupid. Just put them in the "FAIL" book and walk away.

I've never really understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. Not because of the content, but because of the pointlessness of it.
Men of different faiths use this argument in support of their own deity. If arguments such as these prove the existence of a God, then imagine a Christian and a Muslim shaking hands in great jubilation, knowing all along that Space Daddy WAS indeed up there, and that the atheists were fools for ever doubting his/her/he-shes presence. Isn't there a glaring contradiction right there?
For all I know, that argument could support an ancient five-legged lizard as being the creator; if I believe in it, then it HAS to be the thing up there, right?

(October 24, 2011 at 1:23 pm)JollyForr Wrote: I've never really understood the cosmological argument for God's existence. Not because of the content, but because of the pointlessness of it.
Men of different faiths use this argument in support of their own deity. If arguments such as these prove the existence of a God, then imagine a Christian and a Muslim shaking hands in great jubilation, knowing all along that Space Daddy WAS indeed up there, and that the atheists were fools for ever doubting his/her/he-shes presence. Isn't there a glaring contradiction right there?
For all I know, that argument could support an ancient five-legged lizard as being the creator; if I believe in it, then it HAS to be the thing up there, right?

Very true.

Even if the CA was logically valid, all it could possibly do would be to is to some sort of creator deity. But there is no possible way to discern what sort of creator it would be.

But that is a moot point, since the CA contains a huge equivocation fallacy that invalidates it. I laugh at WLC's version of the CA, since all he's doing trying to polish a turd.