Guess u didn't watch the debates either. Your arrogance on calling scientists believing in creation gullible, only proves how closed minded you are. In some of those links, there were house votes with sophisticated people and they still voted in favor that believing in God is in fact, not delusional. Then there was another debate in Cambridge, filled with many very sophisticated people and most of them, with a show of hands, believes god exists. So either you are totally right and they are all fools, or maybe you are the one bring the fool.
It can be respected as one of several early compilations of fictional tales with themes meant to teach moral lessons in an entertaining way. Like Aesop's Fables, but with an egomaniacal serial-killer as the central figure.
You are giving very little credit to the sophistication of the audience and debaters he speaks in front of. We aren't living in a world that you can sell snake oil here. They are extremely educated people. If he had no case, he would be ridiculed easily in the science platform. Instead they now see him as an equal. And you not seeing this is just an example of arrogance.
And just so you know, Craig believes the universe is 17 billion years old. He also is open to evolution. But since he's a theist, many in here call him a con artist or gullible. I find the arrogance intriguing. That you would have or feel the right to judge others, especially one considered just as sophisticated as some of the greatest minds in science; but ridicule the Christians. Now I have made it perfectly clear I hate those types of Christians. This is why I find it laughable when I read some of these things. It transcends sophistication and the complete ignorance from both sides.
to the audience? we certainly are. someone being smart isn't a guarantee they are informed or capable of logical reasoning about a subject, or have the desire or even the capacity to think objectively about it. do you think millions of hindus, muslims, mormons etc are buying arguments you think are false because they're all idiots? regardless of who is actually right or wrong humans of all intelligence levels are obviously quite prone to not thinking rationally about religious subjects. again, for the most part his arguments aren't scientific. they are philosophical, or just appeals to intuition really. and a lot of philosophers do think he's a joke.
he's considered a rock star by christians because he's a great debater. that's it. nobody among professional scientists, historians, or philosophers would compare him to the greatest minds in science. that's utterly insane. his arguments (cosmological, empty tomb, morality = god etc) aren't even remotely original. he just regurgitates tired arguments nobody but christians takes seriously anymore. he makes a living telling christians what they want to hear, and happens to do it so well that snake oil sales are booming.
It's all a conspiracy Magnifier, con-artist Craig plants his deluded followers in the audiences he debates in front of, so when they clap and vote for him as the winner it only gives the illusion that he won the debate. Meanwhile, all the "rationalist" secular scientists are sitting in the back snickering at his stupidity. Or something like that. (Or, maybe it's because Craig does a good job at explaining how ludicrous and nonsensical a Godless world and universe is? nah...)
So hitchen opinion on him is a joke? I also love ur generalization too. I would like to see the evidence and not one sided census of him being called a joke. And if you can't find it, then ur argument is way off base.
I'm ALWAYS right and I NEVER lie. Deluded people voting that they themselves are not delusional holds weight with you? Having done exhaustive research over most of my youth and forming a firm, supportable conclusion by analyzing the factual evidence presented from every available source (both sides) is "close-minded" in your world? Their belief in mythical super-beings is proof in itself that they lack sophistication.
You must be the most close minded blind follower I have every seen. What makes you any different from a right wing bible thumper judging humanity? I have already shown his credentials, shown atheist actually giving him credit. He teaches philosophy and theology and got his philosophy credentials from a very prestigious English university. All you have proven is you didn't even watch one debate. And if you did, I suspect you just fast forwarded his speeches and debates only to watch your evangelists preach theirs. Talk about dogma. If you have any credit whatsoever; you would respect his intellect. Instead you ridicule him jokingly with arrogance. Laughable!!!
I give NO credit to sheep. And there is more snake oil sold today than ever before. Every single political representative, every law enforcement officer, every corporation, every religion conglomerate sells you snake oil everyday. And apparently you drink it up or else you wouldn't deny it's existence. My recognition of this obvious and well-known fact has it's roots in a love of learning and ample amounts of common sense and analytical abilies. Arrogance would be denying truth when it is evident.
I'm always right and I never lie? Who are you referring to? And you kinda set yourself up for this one. [video=youtube;BoncJBrrdQ8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8[/video] I guess Dawkins lacks sophistication.
You are 100% right. So which sheep are you? One that admits Dawkins is sophisticated; yet will discount another because they believe in intelligent design? I like being the Sheep that puts my faith in Jesus Christ; the only perfect being on this planet.
You know Mags, it would be much easier to discuss these videos of you would provide a transcription or summary for us all to analyze. Just sayin!
LOL yeah maybe true. I can, but then I must put the link on again. What I can do is actually break it down. The Atheist view and Theist view. Then you can jump to each one and the timeline to comment on the actual summary. Yeah 2 hours is a lot to sit through; especially when people are talking in languages most in here have no idea about. But I will tell you one thing. I have watched every single one; scary as that sounds. And I have learned a lot from both sides. Do I have the answers? Hell no! But I have a lot of questions; which I believe is the spearhead of science.
So mocking Craig is an arrogance that really bothers you. Something you hate. And how dare anyone else judge him. But then you in the same thread call Dawkins a coward multiple times? That's funny. Hypocritical. But funny. Or arrogant, I guess? I dunno.
irrelevant. you wasted your time doing that. for being a good debater, yes. i've done that. for making good aruments, no you haven't. totally irrelevant i never said anything about his intellect. i don't respect his arguments because they aren't particularly original or convincing.
Um I hate all "Faith's", including "Atheism" that mock the sophistication of someone that worked just as hard as the other to get a PhD. And yeah I called "Dawkins" a coward. Hell his own Atheist call him a coward for not debating Craig. What I don't do is say Dawkins is delusional. I actually have said I hold a high respect for what Dawkins and Hitchens believe in. And I really gave praise to Hitchens for "being real and honest". Would you like me to bring those posts and put them in the for front?
I'm not going to try and defend Hitchens' preparation, debate skills, or humility -- none of those are at stake here. What I will say is that, at least in that particular debate, Craig offered nothing but textbook arguments for the existence of god. And I mean "textbook" in the most literal sense; those were the exact same arguments I was presented in my high school Christian Apologetics class. I wrote papers on them. I guarantee you that just about every student and alum in that crowd could recite those arguments by heart. They are interesting arguments, and clearly many intelligent folks find them to be convincing. But every single one of them also has significant flaws, and there are many intelligent folks who find the arguments insufficient. Some of the flaws have been outlined pretty well in this very forum -- Google can get you even more criticisms that have been put forth through the ages, if you care to find them. I'd even be happy to rephrase some of those criticisms if you'd like a human being to discuss them with you. I haven't seen the Cambridge video, but if Craig uses these same 5 arguments, there's just nothing new to see there. His great skill (from what I have seen) is not in formulating revolutionary new proofs for Christian beliefs, but in presenting them exceptionally well. I give him full marks for that -- he's obviously a sharp guy, and a remarkable speaker. But he's not a modern-day Thomas Aquinas.
