William Lane Craig

[The Grand Nudger]

Meh, I couldn't do it. It's too terrible a lie to tell.

[Judas BentHer]

And yet.
Do you know why the early scribes and their overseers wrote the Bible so as to refer to believers in god as sheep?

Because sheep are, by nature, stupid animals. They're of a herd mentality, thus incapable of independent thought or lone survival. They require a Shepherd else they'll perish of their own stupidity. Stampede a herd of sheep toward a cliff and every last one will fall bleating to their deaths, even though those in the rear hear the cries of their fellows, they'll none the less follow the dwindling herd right over the cliff. Not even the lambs will veer from the path to their certain doom.

This is a fitting description for Christians and Theists. Because they argue that something that has never been proven to exist, independent of faithful pronouncements it does, does not only exist but came from nothing. Because they can not associate a source for god. They simply argue, quite ineffectually, that god has always existed. And yet, at the same time as they argue that particular point, they condemn atheism for it's pronouncement that the "Big Bang" of science and thus evolution after, came from nothing, which they argue, is impossible!

While the icon of their myth, the Biblical Christ, has never been proven to exist outside the Bible as relates to the proclamations afforded within the Bible as to his divinity, his miracles, etc... And yet, his image and likeness is evident in Pagan myths and in fact his storyline is taken from the Hebrew myth related to their messiah. Not surprising as stealing from other sources in order to compile one mythic composite testifying of itself as a new testament that surpasses the Jews testament, as their messiah has not yet come (and ignores the Pagan sources entirely).

Sheep!

There's a reason the early founders of the cult of lanolin bleaters chose that particular animal as a descriptive for those who would follow every last word those orchestrators of the compilation of myths that culminated into Christianity. Stupid, in desperate need of a Shepherd because they are not able to lead life on their own, and despite all the bleating that it's wrong to go that way, they charge forth proclaiming that's simply not a true fact.


Why not choose a bull, as the symbol of their faithful? A wolf? A pack animal, highly intelligent, pro-choice because when food is not plentiful the only pair that breeds in the pack, the Alpha pair, practices abstinence. And if starving, and with pups, they commit to retroactive abortion killing the pups because otherwise they will suffer and starve to death due to no food to survive the youngest who in time of plenty, do not have to feast in the order of the pack rules, from Alpha unto Delta, but instead are allowed to eat first.

Why not the bear? Why not the eagle? The symbol of what is errantly proclaimed this "christian" nation? A apex Raptor predator that rules the sky and feasts on the firmament?

And Craig's proclamation that god will make himself known to the believer in him, well of course! When first someone believes something invisible does exist, any arbitrary circumstance will then be seen by those who have already dismissed rationality, as proof nothing does speak and proves it is there through presupposition that everything that does exist is put there by that invisible being in the first place and thus all that is already is proof a sentient creative power is responsible for it, because sentient creative imagination called it god, and sentient uncreative individuals accept it's true.

[searchingforanswers]

So what would u guys say in response to the cosmological argument? Did te universe come into being? Or has it always existed?

[The Grand Nudger]

What cosmological argument? You mean circular reasoning mistakenly referred to as an argument? The universe in the cosmological "argument" is only a consequence until you question it. Then the believers demand that you provide them an answer to fill the void you've left in their understanding of the universe around them. It's real easy. When some fundie asks you your opinion, you say "I don't know, and neither do you."

---

It honestly pisses me off to the point of being red in the face when people refer to what they believe as what they know, or somehow assume that what we know is subservient to what they believe. We've obviously failed these people as educators.

---

Calming down. The proper way to respond to the cosmological argument is to politely remind them that their premise and conclusion are identical, and that if they could come up with a premise that is not identical to the conclusion, that they would then have to show evidence of their assumptions. After that they would need to make a successful case for a specific god, since the cosmological argument only applies to a deists god. It makes no distinctions.

In other words, they have an assload of work in front of them. Not that this flag hasn't been taken up before. The cosmological argument is one of the oldest arguments for any god, if it was going to be made into an airtight case, it would have been by now. Once all of that has been done, then they would have an argument for the existence of a god, but they would still need to provide evidence before it could be called "real". An idea of a god, is not a god.

[5thHorseman]

He may be a deluded fuckwit, but WLC is a superior debater to Sir Hitch, general consensus is WLC beat him in their matchup(even staunch atheists generally agree) It's sad, but the truth is WLC is pretty much a full time debater. He should be fucking good by now. He's still a prick.

[Minimalist]

So what would u guys say in response to the cosmological argument? Did te universe come into being? Or has it always existed?

I would say that it doesn't matter either way but there sure as fuck was no invisible sky-daddy behind it.

[5thHorseman]

I say trust the science geeks who study the universe, they know far more than you or I, or WLC, will ever know. I put my 'faith' in people's ever increasing knowledge, not a poor attempt at guess work by desert goat herding nomads.

[Judas BentHer]

I see the winner of the debate to be Hitchens. As CH said, the onus was on WLC to prove his contention regarding his proclamation that there is a god. He failed. While Hitchens side contended there is no evidence supporting WLC's proclamations, ergo Christopher trounced WLC, with WLC's help.

[DeistPaladin]

He may be a deluded fuckwit, but WLC is a superior debater to Sir Hitch, general consensus is WLC beat him in their matchup(even staunch atheists generally agree) It's sad, but the truth is WLC is pretty much a full time debater. He should be fucking good by now. He's still a prick.

That's the fundamental problem with a lot of these debates. The apologist is typically a skilled salesman and well versed in debate. That is, in fact, their area of expertise. The other side is usually debated by a scientist, who's primary skill is in their area of knowledge, not debate. Consequently, you've got razzle-dazzle vs. tech, style vs. substance. To the uneducated observer, the showman has the advantage since that's the medium by which the information (and bs) is presented.

[Skeptic]

(Couldn't resist the "source" for this playlist )

I'm not sure if it was the purpose of his speech, but it got me thinking, why would a Wookie live on Endor?