stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
25-06-2012, 10:24 PM (This post was last modified: 25-06-2012 11:21 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 07:41 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I have to keep defending him from your prejudiced view of Christian apologists. I think this is the third time I'm accusing you of anti-Christian bias. If you wanted to rebut that, you could cite a single instance in all of your posts that you have defended Christianity. I'm not holding my breath, though.


Craig also published a "post-op" rebuttal to Krauss' statement later. They both had not finished when the debate ended. Apparently you made you ill-informed judgement a little early. I posted a mathematical follow-up, whereby, even if one was very generous to Craig, he would have lost by his own, self-instituted scoring system. The only one desperate to get anyone into an argument here, Mr. King of the Rabbit Hole, is you who now insist that the only way to prove non-bias, is to defend Chrisitanity. Ever since I came on this board, I have been defending non-fundamentalism from fundamentalist/literists such as you, (in the Eve/Garden thread), and pointing out there are other non literal meanings to the ancient myth systems, which may not be obvious to modern fundie indocrinated Western minds. Why is anyone debating anything here about this with one who admits he hasn't even watch the damn debate.

You actually have no idea what I think of Christian apologists. The ONLY one you have ever heard me talk about is WLC. You have no need to defend them from me. Apparently you can't, as you have offered not one actual argument in their favor. Who appointed you Defender of the Faith ? Some, (apologists) are my friends. So if you are accusing me of anti-Christian bias, name one Christian apologist I have EVER critcized unfairly, or without reasons. You can't. I don't have to defend Christianity. Your strawman fails. I also don't have to defend Christianity to be non-biased. All I have to do is be rational and reasonable in my criticisms of it, and consistent in criticisms of all religious system. I have criticized Islam as a moon-god cult, and defended the original Hebrew myth system as "having remarkable insight". What have you ever actually said about any of the systems, their actual origins, and premises.

Has Christianity offered anything to Western Civilization ? Of course it has. The myth system it hijacked and espoused, ("salvation"), is not one of them. Western monasticism, music, farming, art, education, genetics, the university system, bla bla bla. But, you don't really expect me to be intellectually dishonest enough to defend something I consider bullshit ? If that's bias. So be it.

You made a sweeping anecdotal statement : "atheists always want to talk about how awful his arguments are. I can't help but think that bias tinges these responses". I responded that I, (as in ME), had actively looked for evidence that he, (WLC), had ever put forth a unique or credible argument, and you are generalizing from one person, to declaring me biased, and are demanding, (as in the Eve thread), I support a Christian fundamentalist position. As I said then, and I say now, "Once down the rabbit hole was enough".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 01:30 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 04:04 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 11:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, not by him alone.

From Wiki:
The Kalām cosmological argument is a variation of the cosmological argument that argues for the existence of a First Cause for the universe. Its origins can be traced to medieval Jewish, Christian and Muslim thinkers, but most directly to Islamic theologians of the Kalām tradition.

And it's a simplistic argument based on a false assumption, so it does no one great credit.
Yes, the cosmological argument itself is old. The "Kalam" version is not. Nevertheless, is this relevant? Does shooting down the one example I offered make him "uncreative", or are we really here just to try desperately to cling to our beliefs that Christians must be awful people in every aspect?
*hulks up smashes some stuff, comes back happy*

No

WLC is evil cause he distorts science, tells lies, and relies on peoples beliefs for his INCOME. Reinforcing false beliefs for money should make you cringe.

Christians are not evil just deluded, however when somebody like WLC, the faith healer, or the horrible politician comes along and uses peoples beliefs as a means to secure things for their own selfish whims, that's when they cross the line.

In other words, guy uses peoples beliefs for money,war,self worth = evil/bad

Drinking Beverage Now back to some relaxing music.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 05:12 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(25-06-2012 10:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(25-06-2012 07:41 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  I have to keep defending him from your prejudiced view of Christian apologists. I think this is the third time I'm accusing you of anti-Christian bias. If you wanted to rebut that, you could cite a single instance in all of your posts that you have defended Christianity. I'm not holding my breath, though.


Craig also published a "post-op" rebuttal to Krauss' statement later. They both had not finished when the debate ended. Apparently you made you ill-informed judgement a little early. I posted a mathematical follow-up, whereby, even if one was very generous to Craig, he would have lost by his own, self-instituted scoring system. The only one desperate to get anyone into an argument here, Mr. King of the Rabbit Hole, is you who now insist that the only way to prove non-bias, is to defend Chrisitanity. Ever since I came on this board, I have been defending non-fundamentalism from fundamentalist/literists such as you, (in the Eve/Garden thread), and pointing out there are other non literal meanings to the ancient myth systems, which may not be obvious to modern fundie indocrinated Western minds. Why is anyone debating anything here about this with one who admits he hasn't even watch the damn debate.

You actually have no idea what I think of Christian apologists. The ONLY one you have ever heard me talk about is WLC. You have no need to defend them from me. Apparently you can't, as you have offered not one actual argument in their favor. Who appointed you Defender of the Faith ? Some, (apologists) are my friends. So if you are accusing me of anti-Christian bias, name one Christian apologist I have EVER critcized unfairly, or without reasons. You can't. I don't have to defend Christianity. Your strawman fails. I also don't have to defend Christianity to be non-biased. All I have to do is be rational and reasonable in my criticisms of it, and consistent in criticisms of all religious system. I have criticized Islam as a moon-god cult, and defended the original Hebrew myth system as "having remarkable insight". What have you ever actually said about any of the systems, their actual origins, and premises.

Has Christianity offered anything to Western Civilization ? Of course it has. The myth system it hijacked and espoused, ("salvation"), is not one of them. Western monasticism, music, farming, art, education, genetics, the university system, bla bla bla. But, you don't really expect me to be intellectually dishonest enough to defend something I consider bullshit ? If that's bias. So be it.

You made a sweeping anecdotal statement : "atheists always want to talk about how awful his arguments are. I can't help but think that bias tinges these responses". I responded that I, (as in ME), had actively looked for evidence that he, (WLC), had ever put forth a unique or credible argument, and you are generalizing from one person, to declaring me biased, and are demanding, (as in the Eve thread), I support a Christian fundamentalist position. As I said then, and I say now, "Once down the rabbit hole was enough".
I think this will be my last response to you. We've gotten into a fruitless argument before because you're not even slightly flexible or able to look over your own arguments critically. And worse, you keep making the same errors.

This "Mr. King of the Rabbit Hole" is a personal attack. Please cut that out. If you don't to be insulted, then you shouldn't be insulting.

If WLC followed up with a post himself, then perhaps he did win the debate. Who cares? I told you that I wasn't arguing about who won this specific debate and why. "So obviously I'm not defending Craig's arguments in his debate vs Krauss". That's what I said. Drop it. That wasn't the point of my argument, and it still isn't.


It's true that I don't know what you think about Christian apologists, although I can guess from your posts. I see bias against WLC, which is expected since you are an atheist, which means that you think WLC's view of theology is wrong. So do I. However, I don't let my bias lead my thinking about opponents. I'm constantly aware of my bias and trying to minimize its effects.


You're mis-characterizing my argument again when you say that I'm defending all apologists. While I never said such a thing, I will say that I don't think you should make prejudiced judgments about any group, including apologists. You've got to be aware of your bias and control it, otherwise it leads to an "us vs them" mentality. So in that way, I am defending apologists and Christians and anyone that you would have good reason to be biased against. This us vs them mentality is evidence when you personally attack me (again, *sigh*) by calling me a Defender of the Faith, as if by arguing in favor of good traits in this one apologist that I must be "on their side".

The obvious example of one apologist that you've ever criticized unfairly is WLC. That is the thesis of my rebuttals -- that WLC is not only smart and creative (as I keep evidencing), but that the reason you keep up your criticism is that you can't give an opponent even a fair consideration. That includes me, too.

You bring up the Eve thread, and it's great to keep this in mind, because that same thread you also kept making strawman attacks. You accused me of it, and that leads me to believe that you don't really know what they are. It's when you mis-characterize your opponent's arguments and then argue against those. When you argue against "Has Christianity offered anything to western civilization", you're arguing against a position that I didn't take. When you bring up Islam and argue about "consistency in our arguments", you're arguing against a position I didn't take. I didn't call you inconsistent. In fact, I made the opposite argument, that you are consistently anti-religious.[

You're explaining why you may have bias, but that was assumed for a reason. Anyone -- ANYONE -- who disagrees with one of your viewpoints is someone that you'd be biased against. Bias isn't evil in itself -- it's a mental shortcut. We all have bias, and that includes me. I'm biased against thousands of people and thousands of issues. But the important thing is not to let bias rule our decisions. At least, that's how I feel about bias.

So you say that you don't have to defend Christianity. That's true. I remarked that it was only one way that you could prove that you're not led by bias. If you were, then every argument you make would be anti-Christianity. And I think we both agree that it is. You're arguing that it is about being consistent, but that's the "wrong" kind of consistency. I personally don't hold my opponents to a double-standard. If a certain trait in an atheist made them "smart" (such as being well-educated), then I apply that same standard to Christians or any religious figures. That's my view of consistency. Your view would make a racist person's double-standard against other races "consistent". That's why I call it wrong, and I think you'd be inclined to agree.

Anyway, none of this long post is for you. I say it's to you, but frankly I don't think any form of argument will convince you. I called you unreasonable before, and I still think you're unreasonable now. I would simply hope that other forum members can see that Christians aren't bad people just because they're Christians, and also see that bias can drive someone to never give them an inch. It's not a fair system, but it's your system, Bucky Ball.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 05:28 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
Oh my Gwynnies; what part of "insufferable know-it-all" are you failing to understand, Starcrash? Big Grin

I hafta think the Buckster has the same kinda issue I got with WLC, that just thinking about this guy makes me wanna go take a shower. Thus, ya know, conformation bias is biased. I mean, I don't see where the wiki credits him so much as uses him as an example. Every part of his argument has its antecedent, all he did is wrap it up nice-nice for the simplified grazing of the sheeple.

[Image: 10289811_592837817482059_8815379025397103823_n.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
26-06-2012, 06:50 AM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2012 02:27 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
starcrash Wrote:  I see bias against WLC, which is expected since you are an atheist, which means that you think WLC's view of theology is wrong.
I called you unreasonable before, and I still think you're unreasonable now.

Exactly.
If I wanted a sermon, I'd go to church.
*sigh* No one said Christians were bad people, or that there was anything coming from me about WLC personally. Would it be too much to ask for specifics instead of "Or do you just dismiss any positive things said about people that you disagree with", and "atheists always want to talk about how awful his arguments are. I can't help but think that bias tinges these responses. Isn't is possible to be wrong, yet still be smart or creative?"
Where EXACTLY, have I criticized WLC unfairly ? What argument EXACTLY have I used against his arguments that is unfair, or unreasonable.
People who can't even be bothered to watch the debate being discussed in a thread, and instead sermonize in generalities with no specifics,
from the peanut gallery, make themselves look rather silly.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-06-2012, 02:13 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
(22-06-2012 07:12 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Fucking Craig is such a slimy piece of misspent organic chemistry... Evil_monster
[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf4DT55g7_H5hKVPjCoNr...I6YcvGML-Q]

As an ambassador for the banana slug community, I find this comment offensive to slugs.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver's post
26-06-2012, 03:54 PM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
More ad hominem, name-calling, and stereotyping. I really, truly hoped that we were better than this. Christians can look at our arguments, in full view of the public, and dismiss them for being unfair and immoral.

As people who give lip service to ethics, why do we stoop to insults? Why do we attack our opponents personally? Why do we paint all of our enemies with prejudice? If they did it to us, we'd be offended, but for some reason we think it's alright to do it all the same. Are we those people who get angry at tailgaters but are oblivious to the fact that we're tailgating? Do we get angry when someone steals from us but rationalize it when we steal? Do we think it's okay to fuck someone's spouse or girlfriend but get enraged when someone fucks ours?

The golden rule is the most basic of moral rules. We teach it to children because we know they can grasp it. Our atheist heroes push it. Society pushes it. So why the hell are we having so much trouble following it? We can be nice to Christians. We can treat them like human beings with feelings. We can acknowledge when they do something right. Or can we?

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Starcrash's post
26-06-2012, 04:51 PM (This post was last modified: 26-06-2012 08:31 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
[Image: th_Nun_ruler.jpg]
Now class, you-know-who will now be the hall monitor. If you don't do as you're told, Sister will rap your knuckles.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
27-06-2012, 01:13 AM (This post was last modified: 04-04-2014 09:44 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
Ok. Something has been bugging me ever since I (actually) watched the debate, and for the many passing guests who no doubt will search for WLC to see what we're saying, I thought I'd take a minute and point out something which passed pretty fast in this debate, but which Craig, the magician/showman made a big fucking deal of, in the Bart Ehrman debate, and is as intellectually dishonest as it could possibly be, (and Craig would have had to be aware of it). He does it fairly quickly, as he passes his hand over the hat, to pull out the rabbit, and Krauss made a fairly quick reference to it, assuming those familiar with the Philosophy of Science would recognize what he was saying, but it does stick as an annoying unanswered point, unless you have thought about it. He actually tries to trick the audience.

The actual debate is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE ,

and Krauss' follow-up is here : http://www.reasonablefaith.org/lawrence-...erspective ,

In the follow-up, Krauss says "Craig began with an attempt to demonstrate his scientific and mathematical credentials by writing a rather meaningless equation on this first slide, which he then argued would be the basis for his 'evidence'. The equation, in words said that if the probability, given the data, gave one a greater than 50% likelihood for God's existence, then this was evidence. He even presented this as a pseudo- Bayesian Argument. The problem is that using mathematical probabilities in this fashion ONLY makes sense if you have a well defined probability measure, and if one can check that the conclusions one draws are not sensitive to one's priors. He did not explain this at all, nor do I think he understood it when I tried to explain it to him. For the rest of the evening Craig simply proceeded to spout his claimed evidence, and then proceeded to state that each gave him a greater than 50% belief in God. The whole purpose of the mathematical nonsense at the beginning was to give some kind of scientific credibility to a discussion which was anything but. It was disingenuous smoke and mirrors. (Moreover, as I tried to explain, in modern scientific experiments, merely finding an unexpected result, with say only a 20% chance of being wrong, is not sufficient to establish evidence. One needs to go to much higher levels of confidence, especially if the claim being made disagrees with all other evidence. It is hard to think of a grander claim than evidence for a divine being who creates the universe without apparent purpose, dominated by dark matter and dark energy and containing hundreds of billions of galaxies, lets it evolve untouched for billions of years, and then roughly a million years into human evolution decides to intervene at a time before Youtube or any other objective recording and archiving tool was available."

The thing is Krauss' integrity is unquestionable, and he assumes Craig is not attempting his Sophist manipulation, because he could not, as an educator, imagine it.
I disagree, and I think Craig is well aware of what he's pulling, as in the Ehrman debate, he, (Craig) does the rabbit trick again, by saying Ehrman makes "Bart's Blunder", and Craig puts up an even more complicated Bayesian probabilty formula, and passes his wand over it, and makes it come out to say the probability of the resurrection approaches 1.

So, first he applies a Bayesian formula to an improbable historical event, (without explaining why that would be appropriate...which it isn't), but then reduces the terms of the Bayesian equation to a simplistic version of the equation, and it all happens so fast, you almost don't have time to see what he's doing. Here's what he does.

Craig's initial equation is Pr(R/B) = Pr(R/B) * Pr(E/B & R) / [ Pr(R/B) * Pr(E/B & R) + Pr(notR/B * Pr(E/B & notR)]

Pr = probability
R = the resurrection
B = (general) Background knowledge or data
E = (Craig's) "evidence" of the resurrection

Then he reduces this to X / X + Y.

Craig says the probability of the resurrection could be very high, even though the proability of an actual resurrection (R/B) is very low, (Y), because, mathematically, x/x, (as y approaches 0), approaches 1.

And that's the sleight of hand. The original equation is "disappeared" from the hat, before the audience has time to think about it. If Pr(R/B) actually is 0, or approaches 0, and/or Pr(E/B & R) approaches 0, the whole thing is meaningless, both because the denominator would be 0, (and everyone knows division by 0 is meaningless), and the numerator already is 0. So there is absolutely no reason it could not have a solution of zero.

The whole business of slapping arbitrary numerical values on past historical events is ludicrous, anyway, but I thought it might be useful to point out how totally disingenuous his little magic trick really is. And this idiot says he's engaged in a search for truth. I think not. Bart's Blunder is really Craig's Crap. Oh BTW, in one of these debates his also flips through the magic trick of the "what is infinity - infinity" thing. He is also well aware, that the answer is that it is "undefined", NOT his attempted lie.

Craig is a practioner of the specious craft of Sophistry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophism

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist
The noblest of the dogs is the hot dog. It feeds the hand that bites it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
27-06-2012, 11:23 AM
RE: stevelikes2curse takes on WLC's "Reasonable Faith" (Video)
If his probability wand works so well, why can't he apply it to scientific inquiry too? Maybe he would consent to take a first year algebra test... or how about stats since he knows so much about Bayesian methods? Let's give him a basic stats test. Surely he must know about p values and ANOVA and all that stuff...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Trying To Explain Differences Between Faith, Science, Laws And Theories WindyCityJazz 5 111 20-07-2014 07:27 AM
Last Post: goodwithoutgod
  It takes more faith to be an Atheist TheKetola 40 3,705 18-07-2014 01:29 PM
Last Post: Mr. Slave
  I don't have faith in Jeremy Walker. Leo 51 946 04-06-2014 01:03 AM
Last Post: Hafnof
  I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist catgoblin 573 6,339 03-06-2014 03:46 PM
Last Post: rampant.a.i.
  Oh what the heck...Here is a video of mine too! Shadow Fox 3 122 23-05-2014 03:25 AM
Last Post: Mark Fulton
  Facepalm video Luke_Atheist 1 57 17-04-2014 03:00 PM
Last Post: Mat0816
  J W's anti masturbation video in sigh language. dancefortwo 28 596 09-04-2014 07:25 AM
Last Post: Bible Belt Brawler
Forum Jump: