William Lane Craig on why Dawkins is so popular

Vampireskiss · 13-12-2009 09:25PM #1

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

Flamed Diving · 13-12-2009 09:30PM

Hi William!

Vampireskiss · 13-12-2009 09:32PM

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 · 13-12-2009 09:34PM

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

The Mad Hatter · 13-12-2009 09:35PM

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

Ickle Magoo · 13-12-2009 09:39PM

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 · 13-12-2009 09:49PM

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 · 13-12-2009 09:53PM

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

Flamed Diving · 13-12-2009 09:54PM

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 · 13-12-2009 10:00PM

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

ChocolateSauce · 13-12-2009 10:35PM

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 · 13-12-2009 10:35PM

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 · 13-12-2009 11:03PM

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 · 13-12-2009 11:18PM

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 · 14-12-2009 12:30AM

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 · 14-12-2009 01:44AM

robindch wrote: »

cream cheese dildo.

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

GLaDOS · 14-12-2009 04:09AM

Vampireskiss wrote: »

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

That was pretty laughable I have to say

Turtwig · 14-12-2009 03:03PM

I loved this.:)

Carpo · 14-12-2009 04:10PM

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 · 14-12-2009 04:12PM

Where's your God now, Vampy?

Zombrex · 14-12-2009 05:33PM

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 · 14-12-2009 05:45PM

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 · 14-12-2009 06:44PM

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 · 14-12-2009 07:34PM

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 · 14-12-2009 07:51PM

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 · 14-12-2009 07:52PM

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 · 14-12-2009 07:54PM

WC = water closet = toilet ?

Sam Vimes · 14-12-2009 08:08PM

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 · 14-12-2009 08:36PM

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 · 14-12-2009 10:46PM

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 · 14-12-2009 10:56PM

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.

William Lane Craig on why Dawkins is so popular

Comments