"If atheism were true...."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 12:37 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:32 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Sorry Vosur, Hitchens does not raise the same objection to the usage of the term that is raised here.
What is the difference supposed to be?

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
16-05-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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".
It's interesting that you see it that way. You see, I make absolutely no assumption about what audience members are thinking or perceiving because I can't know whether they don't recognize Craig's misuse of "atheism" and are being mislead, or they do recognize it and stay quiet, or they assume he means "in a world without God" as you suggested. But, the larger point is it's Craig's intention to mislead which is made obvious by his own statements (one of which was pointed out already in this thread).

Furthermore, what you claim Craig implied is simply your interpretation and probably isn't what he implied at all. Read some of his own statements. He's dishonest and even indirectly admits it when he describes his own dishonest methods. That makes it far more likely that he is deliberately being dishonest again here.

(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.
Audience members aren't going to say anything during a debate unless they are given permission to ask questions. An opponent may not say anything because the opponent may believe there are more important points to be raised in the limited time allotted. Not raising an objection is proof of nothing and it's fallacious to assume that it supports a specific reaction to the misuse of the word.

(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.
Which is exactly why the reactions are probably varied and you can't assume you know what any one of them is thinking, let alone classifying them in a whole group mentality as though they aren't individuals. Talk about not giving them enough credit. Rolleyes

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
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
16-05-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 12:35 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:23 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.

I am glad you said that last bit.

I believe it too.

When atheists who are naturalists reject reality and imagine their lives to be something they are not, they in no way change the fact that the cosmos is indifferent and that they like a mosquito exist because natural forces acting on matter just so happen to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the right amounts for no reason or purpose and without any superintendence whatsoever.

And you would have me believe I am gullible and credulous?

The mere fact that you or anyone who believes something so patently preposterous could accuse someone of being credulous or gullible is laughable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 01:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:35 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

I am glad you said that last bit.

I believe it too.

When atheists who are naturalists reject reality and imagine their lives to be something they are not, they in no way change the fact that the cosmos is indifferent and that they like a mosquito exist because natural forces acting on matter just so happen to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the right amounts for no reason or purpose and without any superintendence whatsoever.

And you would have me believe I am gullible and credulous?

The mere fact that you or anyone who believes something so patently preposterous could accuse someone of being credulous or gullible is laughable.

What is it that those people are rejecting?
What is it that those people are imagining?


I'm getting more than a whiff of strawman here. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2014, 01:55 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 01:32 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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".
It's interesting that you see it that way. You see, I make absolutely no assumption about what audience members are thinking or perceiving because I can't know whether they don't recognize Craig's misuse of "atheism" and are being mislead, or they do recognize it and stay quiet, or they assume he means "in a world without God" as you suggested. But, the larger point is it's Craig's intention to mislead which is made obvious by his own statements (one of which was pointed out already in this thread).

Furthermore, what you claim Craig implied is simply your interpretation and probably isn't what he implied at all. Read some of his own statements. He's dishonest and even indirectly admits it when he describes his own dishonest methods. That makes it far more likely that he is deliberately being dishonest again here.

(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.
Audience members aren't going to say anything during a debate unless they are given permission to ask questions. An opponent may not say anything because the opponent may believe there are more important points to be raised in the limited time allotted. Not raising an objection is proof of nothing and it's fallacious to assume that it supports a specific reaction to the misuse of the word.

(16-05-2014 12:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  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.
Which is exactly why the reactions are probably varied and you can't assume you know what any one of them is thinking, let alone classifying them in a whole group mentality as though they aren't individuals. Talk about not giving them enough credit. Rolleyes

When faced with the choice of determining who is more qualified to speak on what is entailed in a godless view of reality, I look for credentials.

You have none that I know of. Craig's credentials are public information and his works, many of which appear in scholarly publications, are available as well.

If I were to find Doctors of philosophy making a stink over this issue I would bother to investigate it.

Since it is an issue primarily for internet infidels who have no credentials, I take it with a grain of salt.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
16-05-2014, 02:01 PM
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 01:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 12:35 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  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.

I am glad you said that last bit.

I believe it too.

When atheists who are naturalists reject reality and imagine their lives to be something they are not, they in no way change the fact that the cosmos is indifferent and that they like a mosquito exist because natural forces acting on matter just so happen to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the right amounts for no reason or purpose and without any superintendence whatsoever.

And you would have me believe I am gullible and credulous?

The mere fact that you or anyone who believes something so patently preposterous could accuse someone of being credulous or gullible is laughable.

You've been shown to be mistaken, and yet again are attempting to shift the conversation to a different topic by Gishing out a bunch of unsupported assertions.

I really do feel sorry for you. You're incapable of admitting when you're wrong, so you obfuscate by vomiting garbage logic, expecting someone to leap in and mop it up, and forget your last glaring mistake.

No wonder you idolize someone like WLC.

β€œIt 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
[+] 6 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
16-05-2014, 02:04 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:01 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 01:45 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  I am glad you said that last bit.

I believe it too.

When atheists who are naturalists reject reality and imagine their lives to be something they are not, they in no way change the fact that the cosmos is indifferent and that they like a mosquito exist because natural forces acting on matter just so happen to come together at the right time, in the right place, in the right amounts for no reason or purpose and without any superintendence whatsoever.

And you would have me believe I am gullible and credulous?

The mere fact that you or anyone who believes something so patently preposterous could accuse someone of being credulous or gullible is laughable.

You've been shown to be mistaken, and yet again are attempting to shift the conversation to a different topic by Gishing out a bunch of unsupported assertions.

I really do feel sorry for you. You're incapable of admitting when you're wrong, so you obfuscate by vomiting garbage logic, expecting someone to leap in and mop it up, and forget your last glaring mistake.

No wonder you idolize someone like WLC.

You must not be a naturalist.

If you were you would agree with my summation.

You therefore must be a super-naturalist.


Welcome to the club!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
16-05-2014, 02:08 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:01 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  You've been shown to be mistaken, and yet again are attempting to shift the conversation to a different topic by Gishing out a bunch of unsupported assertions.

I really do feel sorry for you. You're incapable of admitting when you're wrong, so you obfuscate by vomiting garbage logic, expecting someone to leap in and mop it up, and forget your last glaring mistake.

No wonder you idolize someone like WLC.

You must not be a naturalist.

If you were you would agree with my summation.

You therefore must be a super-naturalist.


Welcome to the club!

He didn't address that summary at all, yet you presume an answer.
Another entirely dishonest post. You are shameless.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
16-05-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:04 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  You must not be a naturalist.

If you were you would agree with my summation.

You therefore must be a super-naturalist.


Welcome to the club!

He didn't address that summary at all, yet you presume an answer.
Another entirely dishonest post. You are shameless.

He addressed it.

It is naturalism.

If anyone disagrees with it then they are non-naturalists like I am.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 02:13 PM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 02:10 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 02:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  He didn't address that summary at all, yet you presume an answer.
Another entirely dishonest post. You are shameless.

He addressed it.

It is naturalism.

If anyone disagrees with it then they are non-naturalists like I am.

Please provide a quote of him addressing it. You can't. Because he didn't.

You are utterly dishonest.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: