William Lane Craig on why Dawkins is so popular

Vampireskiss

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4&feature=related

Flamed Diving

Hi William!

Vampireskiss

Here is another video where William lane Craig debunks the central argument of the God Delusion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw&feature=related

Flamed Diving

I voted 'one star' on both videos, and I didn't even watch them.

The Mad Hatter

Craig accuses atheists of unsophisticated thinking? That's a laugh.

Ickle Magoo

That screechy tone of voice makes whatever he's saying sound like a toddlers pleading argument. He also seems to be blaming a dumbing down of religion for the popularity of atheism?! And then calls those people irrational & lacking in rigorous thinking? Huh?

Vampireskiss

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That screechy tone of voice makes whatever he's saying sound like a toddlers pleading argument. He also seems to be blaming a dumbing down of religion for the popularity of atheism?! And then calls those people irrational & lacking in rigorous thinking? Huh?

Well it hasn't done him too bad up to now considering he has won all his debates against his atheist adverseries.

He really made Hickens look bad only a few months ago

Ickle Magoo

well, he certainly seems to be a hero of yours....bless.

Flamed Diving

This is simply moronic. Let's say that Craig takes on Dawkins and wipes him out. The worst debate loss in the history of debating. Then he does it to Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett and all the other guys. What comes of all of this? Are we any closer to being able to test for the existence of a supernatural creator? Has human knowledge advanced in any way? Will our understanding of the cosmos be advanced by this? Will we simply return to believing what the Bible says and casting away all scientific knowledge? What is the point?

Flamed Diving

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJTQL09vQCM

ChocolateSauce

Well I like Dawkins because he says what I think. The first time I saw him speak it was like he was reading my own mind and regurgitating its content more eloquently than I could.

Maybe the actual reason he's popular is because I'm not the only one who has experienced this?

Turtwig

WLC is a creationist. He is neither a honest philosopher nor debater. He consistently uses arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. He is one of the few philosophers out there who actively expects atheists to prove God's non existence. He is really nothing more than a pathetic sophist who continuously distorts science, cherry picks it and ignores the bits that damage his argument.
In nearly every debate I've seen him take part in, WLC mentions that life's probability of beginning is 10^123 and that atheists are taking huge leap of faith in believing in life evolving without some "Intelligent Input" starting the process. He consistently uses logically fallacious arguments that appeal to the layman (sometimes involving emotive appeals) whereby he often strawmans his opponents position. The amount of times the guy has misrepresented arguments in TGD is staggering. Craig argues unapologetically, he is never wrong and he never actually responds honestly to the other sides argument - it's one thing to strawman atheists; it's another to strawman muslims. Somehow, rather bizarrely, many Christians view him as some sort of hero. I however, view him as the reason religion can get so depressing and so dangerous. The use of logic like his should never EVER be allowed.

Edit : Had to add this video.

Vampireskiss

Malty_T wrote: »

WLC is a creationist. He is neither a honest philosopher nor debater. He consistently uses arguments that have been thoroughly debunked. He is one of the few philosophers out there who actively expects atheists to prove God's non existence. He is really nothing more than a pathetic sophist who continuously distorts science, cherry picks it and ignores the bits that damage his argument.
In nearly every debate I've seen him take part in, WLC mentions that life's probability of beginning is 10^123 and that atheists are taking huge leap of faith in believing in life evolving without some "Intelligent Input" starting the process. He consistently uses logically fallacious arguments that appeal to the layman (sometimes involving emotive appeals) whereby he often strawmans his opponents position. The amount of times the guy has misrepresented arguments in TGD is staggering. Craig argues unapologetically, he is never wrong and he never actually responds honestly to the other sides argument - it's one thing to strawman atheists; it's another to strawman muslims. Somehow, rather bizarrely, many Christians view him as some sort of hero. I however, view him as the reason religion can get so depressing and so dangerous. The use of logic like his should never EVER be allowed.

Creationists dont believe in evolution or that the earth is older than 6000 years old, Dr Craig doesnt subscribe to these believes so he couldnt be a creationist

his argument is that humans existence through evoultion proves the existence of God because the odds of this happening are so astromomically high that it had to be intelligent design

Turtwig

Vampireskiss wrote: »

his argument is that humans existence through evoultion proves the existence of God because the odds of this happening are so astromomically high that it had to be intelligent design

I know, I said that was his argument. Do you really need to be shown how fallacious it is?

This ridiculous proposition of astronomically high odds was proposed by Michael Behe* who is both a creationist and ID advocate. (ID == Creationism, anyway but ID proponents love to try to disguise that fact). Behe argument has been thoroughly debunked because it breaks the rules of mathematics. Unless the initial conditions are known precisely you cannot even consider applying probability to an event - what are the chances of you wriggling your big toe at 7hrs:31mins:32seconds on December 23rd 2012? The problem's meaningless. Secondly, the scientific understanding of abiogenesis is completely ignored (see diagram).



*Behe was not the first to propose this particular argument (don't know who it was), he is however the person Craig references when making it.

robindch

Vampireskiss wrote: »

Creationists dont believe in evolution or that the earth is older than 6000 years old, Dr Craig doesnt subscribe to these believes so he couldnt be a creationist his argument is that humans existence through evoultion proves the existence of God because the odds of this happening are so astromomically high that it had to be intelligent design

Craig is an old-earth-creationist.

His wiggly eyebrows and strangely camp taste in clothes might convince the odd swing voter in the teleological me-me-me! contest that is organized religion, but in the less ephemeral circles where the big boys roam, his canned talking-points aren't worth a cream cheese dildo.

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

cream cheese dildo.

Next meet up, I am SO making you say that out loud!

GLaDOS

Vampireskiss wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4&feature=related

That was pretty laughable I have to say

Turtwig

I loved this.:)

Carpo

Malty_T wrote: »

I loved this.:)

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767
This is a link to the article written by WLC discussed in the video above. I thought the guys from Atheist Experience might be exaggerating or misrepresenting WLC but no, he does indeed endorse the killing of Canaanite children (which he says is not murder) because in doing so those children will be saved (this ties in with the video Malty posted on the other thread about whether christians should kill their children) and instead appeals for pity on behalf of the poor soldiers who had to kill them.

I have watched a few of WLCs 'debates' in the past and found him to be pretty useless, but I thought even he would shrink away from this kind of despicable thinking

Flamed Diving

Where's your God now, Vampy?

Zombrex

Vampireskiss wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gpJuztzOH4&feature=related

I've never actually heard anyone every use the argument he mentions against the rather irrational idea that anything has a beginning has a cause (something we don't know is true)

So this is sort of shooting fish in the barrel for him, refuting an argument that we are supposed to accept that someone made in the first place.

It is certainly not an argue Dawkins uses and I notice he doesn't refute those arguments. Far easier to refute some argument someone may or may not have made on the Internet I guess

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Where's your God now, Vampy?

I thought vampy was an agnostic who just likes to get a rise out of atheists.
I sincerely hope he doesn't think we fear WLC's impeccable arguments.

Sam Vimes

I just watched the video and my what a load of nonsense. Firstly like Wicknight I've never heard anyone say in response to the "everything that begins to exist has a cause" argument that "nothing begins to exist because the atoms existed beforehand" but anyway I expected him to say that those atoms were created in the big bang and therfore did begin to exist. Technically that would refute the argument except that we don't know that the atoms were actually created in the big bang.

But instead he started waffle on about "Did I not begin to exist when my parents' sperm and egg came into union? If so where was I? Was I around during the Jurassic age? guffaw guffaw". I don't think it should be necessary to point out something so painfully obvious but he's talking as if something new is created when atoms are arranged in a new order and humans assign a label to this particular order.

I'm trying to find the words to explain how incredibly wrong what he's saying is but you can only explain something if the recipient of the explanation has some semblence of rationality. Probably the best way to try to get through to someone who is capable of saying something so bizarre as if it's everyone else who's being irrational is something along the lines of: "you're wrong because elephant".

robindch

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm trying to find the words to explain how incredibly wrong what he's saying is but you can only explain something [...]

Professor Google suggests it was Wolfgang Pauli who coined the phrase "Not even wrong" for things like this -- notions which are so silly and so off the wall, that it's excessively respectful to call them "wrong". Since by doing so, one is buying into the possibility that the wrong may, at some point, be righted. I don't believe this can really apply to WLC.

BTW, now that I write out the initials, I can see why he iputs the "L" in the middle.

Rb

I actually sat and watching his attempt at discrediting Dawkin's "central argument" in God Delusion and have to say my jaw dropped when he suggested that not everything is deserving of an explanation and instead of seeking explanation, that it's absolutely fine to credit it with intelligent design.

Is it worth listening to another word of his after such tripe?

Turtwig

robindch wrote: »

BTW, now that I write out the initials, I can see why he iputs the "L" in the middle.

I don't.:o

Ickle Magoo

WC = water closet = toilet ?

Sam Vimes

Rb wrote: »

Is it worth listening to another word of his after such tripe?

I would edge towards no. Everything I've seen from that guy is just about as ridiculous as this video. I don't understand why he's such a hero to some christians tbh

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

robindch wrote:

cream cheese dildo.

Next meet up, I am SO making you say that out loud!

Will do (almost) anything for beer

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I would edge towards no. Everything I've seen from that guy is just about as ridiculous as this video. I don't understand why he's such a hero to some christians tbh

Just shows how desperate they are to hold onto their faith

Turtwig

Do any of you guys/gals ever worry how you might have reacted to Craig before you were fully deconverted? I mean I almost fell for the faulty appeal of ID (and I was agnostic at the time), for pete's sake.:mad: I can't help but think what may have happened to me if someone introduced me to Craig around that period.

Sam Vimes

Malty_T wrote: »

Do any of you guys/gals ever worry how you might have reacted to Craig before you were fully deconverted? I mean I almost fell for the faulty appeal of ID (and I was agnostic at the time), for pete's sake.:mad: I can't help but think what may have happened to me if someone introduced me to Craig around that period.

To be honest I never really believed as far as I remember. When I was growing up the whole christianity thing was just like all the other stories I'd been told. I was told all these fantastical things growing up and I think people forgot to tell me that the rest were just stories but I was supposed to believe this particular one

Galvasean

robindch wrote: »

Will do (almost) anything for beer

It's a date. Shall we say January (after Zillah leaves the country), as it is a bit late to be organising such things this side of Christ's Mass?

The Mad Hatter

robindch wrote: »

Will do (almost) anything for beer

Careful, or I'll bring a cream cheese dildo.

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

Do any of you guys/gals ever worry how you might have reacted to Craig before you were fully deconverted?

Good question.

I'm inclined to think that I'd simply find him physically ridiculous ahead of anything else (cf eyebrows + clothes above, together with his completely over-the-top, hand-waving delivery), and that would certainly tend to get in the way of listening to whatever vacuous wibbling he happened to be producing at the time. Sad but true.

But what "deconverted" me was not the illimpid waving-one's-willy-in-the-wind silliness of the religion's most camp proponents, but the wonderfully implacable logic of its opponents. Edward Gibbon was the guy who did it in for me, specifically his magisterial Chapter 15 (et seq), and his elegant and almost hagiographic account of the Heretic Emperor, Julian. If you don't laugh out loud reading the first sentence of the latter, then try reading it again :pac:

lmaopml

To be honest, I think the attraction of Dawkins is not so much his ability to attract true philosophical old style atheists who at least were 'versed' in their opponents belief...... or even the true brains and academics in the science community. I think it's his 'tone' and emphaticism, almost evangelical appeal....He writes fluidly and with tons of rhetoric, and anybody who doesn't actually understand the strawmen arguements gets taken in - lovely science mixed in with really shyte understanding of theology or people of faith and their reasons for belief, and a total lack of self knowledge that is astounding. His belief in 'Anything but God', and chance etc. is almost 'Holy'.....I think he appeals moreso to the hoi polloi, as is shown by the reaction to his work within his own community and the literary and philisophical circles, where his masterpiece was seen for what it is. I think he appeals to himself...lol...and his pocket...

His style almost 'screams' to the reader, if you don't believe me cause I'm sooooo brainy, then your just plain stupid! .......ahh the vanity of it all. and the reader who knows little or nothing about their faith think that they will sound really clever by association. If I had a dime for every time I've heard .....If God is this, then he's not that, if this then that oul pile of shyte....

No prizes for guessing I think there is very little that is appealing about the 'new' atheism and it's poster boys....

*runs*

Turtwig

Just curious, lmaopml how many of Dawkins' books have you read?

lmaopml

Hi Malty

Just two, The Blind Watchmaker ( which was fabulous, a real science book, and really well written )

and The God delusion which I thought was more mad scientist on a mission...

...but of course, I would....and this is the atheist forum so I'm gonna *run* again..lol..


*spits out vitriolic tone from mention of the Dawkins, and blesses self to enter Christianity forum*

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

To be honest, I think the attraction of Dawkins is not so much his ability to attract true philosophical old style atheists who at least were 'versed' in their opponents belief...... or even the true brains and academics in the science community. I think it's his 'tone' and emphaticism, almost evangelical appeal....He writes fluidly and with tons of rhetoric, and anybody who doesn't actually understand the strawmen arguements gets taken in - lovely science mixed in with really shyte understanding of theology or people of faith and their reasons for belief

This is the interesting things about the attacks against Dawkins, they nearly always focus on specific mistakes he has made in relation to details in a Bible story or some such, as if that has any bearing on his rejection of supernatural religion as a whole and his embrace of emprical science.

The idea that Dawkins arguments fall apart because he got say the order of the women who found the tomb of Jesus wrong is quite bizzare, as if getting the right details some how magically makes all of Christianity instantly plausible and believable and excuses all the flaws of supernatural belief.

It is like a Star Wars fan taking accepting to a NASA scientist saying Star Wars would never happen because the scientist mistakenly thought Darth Vader was the Emperors son, as if that has anything to do with why Star Wars would never happen.

Theists get facinated with attacking Dawkins over minor mistakes he has made in the dogma of the individual religions he has discussed and frankly miss the wood for the trees. There is a huge over aching argument for the rejection of supernatural religion and the embrace of empirical science, the idea that Dawkins misunderstanding a story from the Bible or the Quaran nullifies this argument is rather absurd.

But I guess theists take the position that if you can't attack the actual argument attack what you can.

lmaopml

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the interesting things about the attacks against Dawkins, they nearly always focus on specific mistakes he has made in relation to details in a Bible story or some such, as if that has any bearing on his rejection of supernatural religion as a whole and his embrace of emprical science.

The idea that Dawkins arguments fall apart because he got say the order of the women who found the tomb of Jesus wrong is quite bizzare, as if getting the right details some how magically makes all of Christianity instantly plausible and believable and excuses all the flaws of supernatural belief.

It is like a Star Wars fan taking accepting to a NASA scientist saying Star Wars would never happen because the scientist mistakenly thought Darth Vader was the Emperors son, as if that has anything to do with why Star Wars would never happen.

Theists get facinated with attacking Dawkins over minor mistakes he has made in the dogma of the individual religions he has discussed and frankly miss the wood for the trees. There is a huge over aching argument for the rejection of supernatural religion and the embrace of empirical science, the idea that Dawkins misunderstanding a story from the Bible or the Quaran nullifies this argument is rather absurd.

But I guess theists take the position that if you can't attack the actual argument attack what you can.

Ok, so I'm hanging about a little while I see we have another Dawkins fan...and using the same analogies too, except by another name..... Darth vadar indeed, how about the great JuJu?? LOL

If you believe that Dawkins knows everything and are happy and content with that, then by all means join the summer camp. He's not new, he's just brash and lacks elegance or any kind of philosophical appeal.....imo, and his critics.

He should have stuck with what he is good at, that was his gift.....he's chasing the dollar now, in the name of 'freedom'! What a pile of steaming bull...

The Strawman he presents is that Science is exclusively Atheist! If you buy it, that's your choice.

...or maybe Atheists really are much more clever and more evolutionary advanced :eek:, and they've 'awoken' to 'reality'! Buy it? Fill his pocket.....feel free...

*defo runs*

Flamed Diving

lmaopml wrote: »

Ok, so I'm hanging about a little while I see we have another Dawkins fan...and using the same analogies too, except by another name..... Darth vadar indeed, how about the great JuJu?? LOL

LOL, while we are discussing fictional characters, how about this Yahweh fellow. An awful brute by the sounds of it. Thankfully he is entirely non-existent, eh!

Not too fond of the Dawkster myself, either. I mean he is ok, but if you want a proper atheist rant, you need to stop at Hitchens door.

God... Jesus... angels... LOL!

lmaopml

Flamed Diving wrote: »

LOL, while we are discussing fictional characters, how about this Yahweh fellow. An awful brute by the sounds of it. Thankfully he is entirely non-existent, eh!

Not too fond of the Dawkster myself, either. I mean he is ok, but if you want a proper atheist rant, you need to stop at Hitchens door.

God... Jesus... angels... LOL!

Queue Encore, and lots of thanks and slapping of backs * rolls eyes *

Flamed Diving

I'm not an atheist, but I really don't see how you can laugh at 'the great JuJu', Darth Vadar or anything like that. Who are you to say whether something exists or not? Are you omniscient? I doubt you are...

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

The Strawman he presents is that Science is exclusively Atheist! If you buy it, that's your choice.

well it has been scientific proven that religious people and theists have problems with reasoning and critical thinking, find it difficult to tell the difference between reality and fantasy and tend to escape into fantasy during stressful periods

You can't argue with the evidnece



















*runs* :P

Sam Vimes

lmaopml wrote: »

The Strawman he presents is that Science is exclusively Atheist! If you buy it, that's your choice.

I find it amusing that in accusing him of presenting a straw man you have yourself presented a straw man. He said nothing of the sort, in fact I've seen him interview christian scientists. In fairness your whole rant about Dawkins screams of someone who read the book for the sole purpose of finding ammunition against him. Of course it's difficult so you've had to report to straw men such as that he said science is exclusively atheist and personal attacks such as that he's just in it for the money. Even if he is, that doesn't make his arguments wrong

herbiemcc

I really don't understand people.

This big bag monster of SCIENCE is not a real thing at all.

It's not a belief system, not a religion, there are no loyalties, rewards of any kind (other than recognition of academic excellence).

All it means is that if you make a statement or claim then you should have a verifiable reason for it.

That's it.

Why the complications? The journey of scientific discovery isn't aimed at a specific target, loaded with agendas to prove people right or wrong. Religion is completely irrelevant to it's course. Maybe that's the awkwardness people feel which makes them try to shoot it down. What's the alternative? Anybody can say anything they like - it becomes truth (their truth - whatever that means) and nobody can dispute it or ask why or where the claims originated. To do so would make you an evil scientist.

DO YOU GET IT ??????????????????

(I can't believe you have reduced my to using capitals)

robindch

lmaopml wrote: »

If you believe that Dawkins knows everything and are happy and content with that, then by all means join the summer camp.

You're mixing up Dawkins with your make-believe god. But don't worry -- we've seen this before many times!

lmaopml wrote: »

*defo runs*

*stays around to watch lmaopml disappear over the horizon, tail between her legs* *deity nowhere to be seen, of course*

robindch

herbiemcc wrote: »

This big bag monster of SCIENCE is not a real thing at all.

Doesn't have to be as long as it's opponents think it is.

herbiemcc wrote: »

Why the complications?

Because they sell well.

And the proceeds are tax-free in most countries.

Dr. Loon

I think Dawkins scares religious people because he's so popular. He puts his views in very plain language that anyone can understand, and gets you thinking, so more and more people will start copping on to themselves. Which scares religious people. Whether he's in it for the money or not I don't care, but I'm happy if he convinces more people to seek out the truth in their lives. That's what he did for me. Helped me solidify a view I already had. Thank God for that! Eh?

Zombrex

I'm pretty sure lmaopml is winding people up

Which unfortunately is a common side effect of strong religious belief, that and a greater risk of body sweat and herpes

CerebralCortex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm not an atheist...

Are you a theist? I never fully understood.