"If atheism were true...."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 11:24 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:00 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Great answer! Because it shows you had nothing better. Drinking Beverage

Yea its easy to be sarcastic.

My point was that how would Chas know if someone in the audience at a debate had been deceived??

If they agree with what WLC says or believe in a god of some sort - then yes they are deceived big time! Statistically speaking there must have been a few folks like this present.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:26 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:00 AM)Impulse Wrote:  Great answer! Because it shows you had nothing better. Drinking Beverage

Yea its easy to be sarcastic.

My point was that how would Chas know if someone in the audience at a debate had been deceived??
Interesting, considering you seem to think you can know that they all understood.

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:37 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:24 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  If they agree with what WLC says or believe in a god of some sort - then yes they are deceived big time! Statistically speaking there must have been a few folks like this present.

It is confirmed by the number of people at YouTube championing that WLC won the debate.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 11:42 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 11:48 AM by rampant.a.i..)
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 09:48 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 08:54 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  No, it's because WLC is an intellectually dishonest skid-mark who warps language to fool the listener.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/06/0...followers/


"You don't have to read books, just pretend you have and lie about it."


- WLC

http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2010/07/...l.html?m=1

I am sure he would love to hear you say these things. I myself smile when I read them and think of what Christopher Hitchens once said about people resorting to ad hominems.

He loved it when people resorted to ad hominem attacks because this let him know that they had nothing to say against his arguments.

Craig no doubt feels the same way, just as I do.

I would have no problem calling WLC an intellectually dishonest skid mark to his face. The fact that you're taking this as an ad hominem is hilarious in itself, since Craig is often guilty of those, but it's not an ad hominem. Craig himself admitted he has no problem being intellectually dishonest:

William Lane Craig Wrote:I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa (pp. 47-48 in 3rd edition, though wording is virtually unchanged from the 2nd edition). - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...1gnNl.dpuf

Translation:
If reality contradicts the scriptures, lie and pretend it doesn't.

The track record is there, it's abundantly clear that Craig is as intellectually dishonest as he admits to being:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...opponents/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VdRM...asic?pli=1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/...homophobe/

http://www.pantheismunites.org/Articles/...0Craig.htm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lan..._opponents

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 8 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
16-05-2014, 12:13 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:24 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yea its easy to be sarcastic.

My point was that how would Chas know if someone in the audience at a debate had been deceived??

If they agree with what WLC says or believe in a god of some sort - then yes they are deceived big time! Statistically speaking there must have been a few folks like this present.

Hehehe...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:20 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:26 AM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:09 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Yea its easy to be sarcastic.

My point was that how would Chas know if someone in the audience at a debate had been deceived??
Interesting, considering you seem to think you can know that they all understood.

I do not think it unreasonable to claim that those attending the debates in question knew what Craig implied when he used the word "atheism".

I have never seen anyone in any of his debates raise the objection that has been raised here regarding the usage of the term whether it be his opponent or an audience member.

And besides....you all are not giving these audience members enough credit. You all act like he and his opponents make a habit of debating in front of children or something.

The vast majority of the audience members at these debates are adults, most of them learned.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:23 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 12:28 PM by Jeremy E Walker.)
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 11:42 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 09:48 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am sure he would love to hear you say these things. I myself smile when I read them and think of what Christopher Hitchens once said about people resorting to ad hominems.

He loved it when people resorted to ad hominem attacks because this let him know that they had nothing to say against his arguments.

Craig no doubt feels the same way, just as I do.

I would have no problem calling WLC an intellectually dishonest skid mark to his face. The fact that you're taking this as an ad hominem is hilarious in itself, since Craig is often guilty of those, but it's not an ad hominem. Craig himself admitted he has no problem being intellectually dishonest:

William Lane Craig Wrote:I think Martin Luther correctly distinguished between what he called the magisterial and ministerial uses of reason. The magisterial use of reason occurs when reason stands over and above the gospel like a magistrate and judges it on the basis of argument and evidence. The ministerial use of reason occurs when reason submits to and serves the gospel…. Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter, not vice versa (pp. 47-48 in 3rd edition, though wording is virtually unchanged from the 2nd edition). - See more at: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...1gnNl.dpuf

Translation:
If reality contradicts the scriptures, lie and pretend it doesn't.

The track record is there, it's abundantly clear that Craig is as intellectually dishonest as he admits to being:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...opponents/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VdRM...asic?pli=1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/...homophobe/

http://www.pantheismunites.org/Articles/...0Craig.htm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lan..._opponents

You're funny.

The very thing you accuse him of doing you do yourself.

You accuse him of telling people to lie but this in itself is a lie. Where has he told someone to lie?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never seen anyone in any of his debates raise the objection that has been raised here regarding the usage of the term whether it be his opponent or an audience member.
Yeah, well, about that... on the first page of this thread, I, you know, posted a video in which one of Craig's opponents raises an objection to his usage of the term "atheism."

So there's that.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vosur's post
16-05-2014, 12:32 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:24 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I have never seen anyone in any of his debates raise the objection that has been raised here regarding the usage of the term whether it be his opponent or an audience member.
Yeah, well, about that... on the first page of this thread, I, you know, posted a video in which one of Craig's opponents raises an objection to his usage of the term "atheism."

So there's that.

Sorry Vosur, Hitchens does not raise the same objection to the usage of the term that is raised here.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 12:35 PM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 12:39 PM by rampant.a.i..)
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 11:42 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  I would have no problem calling WLC an intellectually dishonest skid mark to his face. The fact that you're taking this as an ad hominem is hilarious in itself, since Craig is often guilty of those, but it's not an ad hominem. Craig himself admitted he has no problem being intellectually dishonest:


Translation:
If reality contradicts the scriptures, lie and pretend it doesn't.

The track record is there, it's abundantly clear that Craig is as intellectually dishonest as he admits to being:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2012/...opponents/

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VdRM...asic?pli=1

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/hallq/2013/...homophobe/

http://www.pantheismunites.org/Articles/...0Craig.htm

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lan..._opponents

You're funny.

The very thing you accuse him of doing you do yourself.

You accuse him of lying but this in itself is a lie. Where has he told someone to lie?

Told someone to lie?

I clearly stated WLC himself is intellectually dishonest.

I do not discard reality where it contradicts biblical scripture.

You were provided multiple links each with multiple documented instances of Craig's intellectual dishonesty.

Craig is intellectually dishonest, as stated originally. Your rejection of reality does not affect reality.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: