Philosophical question?

[magnifier661]

Well, I'm afraid I can't do two of these things tonight... It's bedtime for me. I apologize -- I thought I'd picked the one you were talking about. I'll have to try again tomorrow.

For what it's worth, I think that Craig is eloquent and very good at framing his arguments, but there's nothing in their content that is new or particularly compelling to me... Is there anything different or unique in this other one?

Get some sleep and thanks for watching the video. We can talk about it tomorrow.

 

[crowTrobot]

Oh the hitchens one was good; but I think crow had it right. Looked like hitchens was in over his head.

i didn't say that. hitchens was just unprepared (or too lazy) to do what it takes to "win" this type of debate format.

any atheist with half a brain can refute everything craig says if they have time and a little preparation. and none of his arguments are anything new, or even particularly interesting as arguments for theism go. it's just very hard to sound authoritative vs him in a debate because he's such a skilled rhetorician.

 

[TripTango]

i didn't say that. hitchens was just unprepared (or too lazy) to do what it takes to "win" this type of debate format.

any atheist with half a brain can refute everything craig says if they have time and a little preparation. and none of his arguments are anything new, or even particularly interesting as arguments for theism go. it's just very hard to sound authoritative vs him in a debate because he's such a skilled rhetorician.

Yup. Craig was in debate mode, while Hitchens seemed more interested in having a casual chat. Craig was firing off bulleted PowerPoint-style lists, while Hitchens was content to share anecdotes and meander around various tangents. His content was decent, but his organization (considering the format) was atrocious.

 

[magnifier661]

i didn't say that. hitchens was just unprepared (or too lazy) to do what it takes to "win" this type of debate format.

any atheist with half a brain can refute everything craig says if they have time and a little preparation. and none of his arguments are anything new, or even particularly interesting as arguments for theism go. it's just very hard to sound authoritative vs him in a debate because he's such a skilled rhetorician.

And so the last link I posted in Cambridge was just an atheists bad day? He won the house of skeptics.

 

[magnifier661]

Yup. Craig was in debate mode, while Hitchens seemed more interested in having a casual chat. Craig was firing off bulleted PowerPoint-style lists, while Hitchens was content to share anecdotes and meander around various tangents. His content was decent, but his organization (considering the format) was atrocious.

That's actually arrogance. It was called a debate and because hitchens assumed that the thought of God was delusional; no logical person stood a chance against him. That arrogance made him look terrible. But let's talk about a sophisticated man being prepared. How about a sophisticated group of people? Craig won the vote of te house in Cambridge; which I posted above; plus the debate below it is from a very established sophisticated Englishman that was even giving Craig props when hosting the other debate I linked before (Dawkins cowardly no show) in Cambridge.

To discredit Craig having a point is just not right. If Craig was delusional; then it would be easy to discredit him. Hell even Harris jokingly said before their debate "Craig the man that puts the fear of god in atheists".

These aren't joke minds here. Craig is debating some of the greatest minds in atheism.

 

[MARIS61]

Do you know Nazi Germany actually believed they were the master race, and used the model of "evolution" for "Survival of the Fittest" to wipe out what they believed to be the weaker species? They didn't look at man as equal because they didn't believe in God's laws. They believed in "Evolution's laws". In the mind of evolution; we are all part of the same chemical components. That means, we are no different than the tree, ant, cow or space itself. So what makes killing millions of animals any different than killing millions of people if you truly believe you are superior to them?

I don't agree with this one bit, and the danger of thinking man has this ability to make these decisions on their own can be destructive to this planet and ourselves.

1. Nazis and Jews are not separate species.

2. The bulk of Nazis were German Catholics, Lutherans, or Protestants.

3. The pope called Hitler "A true son of the church" and to this day that statement has never been retracted.

4. The Jews proved to be "the fittest" and now atronomically outnumber the few remaining Nazis.

 

[MARIS61]

Darwin's theory of evolution pertains to environment and adaptability. It has nothing to do with killing.

"Survival of the fittest" is a phrase originating in evolutionary theory, as an alternative description of Natural selection. The phrase is today commonly used in contexts that are incompatible with the original meaning as intended by its first two proponents: British polymath philosopher Herbert Spencer (who coined the term) and Charles Darwin.

Herbert Spencer first used the phrase – after reading Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species – in his Principles of Biology (1864), in which he drew parallels between his own economic theories and Darwin's biological ones, writing, "This survival of the fittest, which I have here sought to express in mechanical terms, is that which Mr. Darwin has called 'natural selection', or the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life."[1]

Darwin first used Spencer's new phrase "survival of the fittest" as a synonym for natural selection in the fifth edition of On the Origin of Species, published in 1869.[2][3] Darwin meant it as a metaphor for "better adapted for immediate, local environment", not the common inference of "in the best physical shape".[4] Hence, it is not a scientific description.[5]

The phrase "survival of the fittest" is not generally used by modern biologists as the term does not accurately convey the meaning of natural selection, the term biologists use and prefer. Natural selection refers to differential reproduction as a function of traits that have a genetic basis. "Survival of the fittest" is inaccurate for two important reasons. First, survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Second, fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next.[6]

An interpretation of the phrase "survival of the fittest" to mean "only the fittest organisms will prevail" (a view sometimes derided as "Social Darwinism") is not consistent with the actual theory of evolution. Any individual organism which succeeds in reproducing itself is "fit" and will contribute to survival of its species, not just the "physically fittest" ones, though some of the population will be better adapted to the circumstances than others. A more accurate characterization of evolution would be "survival of the fit enough".[7]

"Survival of the fit enough" is also emphasized by the fact that while direct competition has been observed between individuals, populations and species, there is little evidence that competition has been the driving force in the evolution of large groups. For example, between amphibians, reptiles and mammals; rather these animals have evolved by expanding into empty ecological niches.[8]

Moreover, to misunderstand or misapply the phrase to simply mean "survival of those who are better equipped for surviving" is rhetorical tautology. What Darwin meant was "better adapted for immediate, local environment" by differential preservation of organisms that are better adapted to live in changing environments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest

 

[magnifier661]

1. Nazis and Jews are not separate species.

2. The bulk of Nazis were German Catholics, Lutherans, or Protestants.

3. The pope called Hitler "A true son of the church" and to this day that statement has never been retracted.

4. The Jews proved to be "the fittest" and now atronomically outnumber the few remaining Nazis.

Past that was an argument for evolution, not religion.

And it was in reference to someone saying religion is dangerous. Darwinism is dangerous too. Doesn't matter what hilter was, because his motive was because of evolution, not creation.

 

[MARIS61]

Of course, there's no such thing as scientists who are also creationists.

Gullibility is not a product of one's career choices, but it does harm one's credibility regardless of their chosen field.

 

[crowTrobot]

If Craig was delusional; then it would be easy to discredit him.

he's more of a con artist than delusional. and it's trivial for someone who knows the subjects to discredit his arguments.

 

[magnifier661]

Gullibility is not a product of one's career choices, but it does harm one's credibility regardless of their chosen field.

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.

 

[MARIS61]

Okay, lets say I give you the "RESPECTED" answer. So the Bible can't be respected though? Why is that?

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.

 

[magnifier661]

he's more of a con artist than delusional. and it's trivial for someone who knows the subjects to discredit his arguments.

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

We aren't living in a world that you can sell snake oil here.

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.

If he had no case, he would be ridiculed easily in the science platform.

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

especially one considered just as sophisticated as some of the greatest minds in science

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.

 

[MadeFromDust]

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...)

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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...)

Lol I'm getting that same feeling too.

 

[MARIS61]

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.

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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!!!

 

[MARIS61]

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.

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.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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]

I guess Dawkins lacks sophistication.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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.

 

[TripTango]

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!

 

[magnifier661]

You know Mags, I 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.

 

[RR7]

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.

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.

 

[crowTrobot]

I have already shown his credentials

irrelevant. you wasted your time doing that.

shown atheist actually giving him credit.

for being a good debater, yes. i've done that.

for making good aruments, no you haven't.

He teaches philosophy and theology and got his philosophy credentials from a very prestigious English university.

totally irrelevant

If you have any credit whatsoever; you would respect his intellect.

i never said anything about his intellect. i don't respect his arguments because they aren't particularly original or convincing.

 

[magnifier661]

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.

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?

 

[TripTango]

That's actually arrogance. It was called a debate and because hitchens assumed that the thought of God was delusional; no logical person stood a chance against him. That arrogance made him look terrible. But let's talk about a sophisticated man being prepared. How about a sophisticated group of people? Craig won the vote of te house in Cambridge; which I posted above; plus the debate below it is from a very established sophisticated Englishman that was even giving Craig props when hosting the other debate I linked before (Dawkins cowardly no show) in Cambridge.

To discredit Craig having a point is just not right. If Craig was delusional; then it would be easy to discredit him. Hell even Harris jokingly said before their debate "Craig the man that puts the fear of god in atheists".

These aren't joke minds here. Craig is debating some of the greatest minds in atheism.

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.