F You, William Lane Craig.

[SillyString]

Sam Harris says it all right here in this debate.

 

 

Thank goodness I'm an EX-christian.

 

Continue to worship this or ANY god who allows millions of innocent children to starve, suffer, and die horribly? Continue to believe that this same god will allow rapists and murderers into heaven on the grounds that they just believe he exists? Continue to give one second more of my life to some invisible being who has a fetish for blood sacrifice?

 

NOT ME! And a big WAKE THE FUCK UP to anybody who does.

 

The only place your god exists is in your own mind, and the minds of others who believe this utter BULLSHIT!!!!!!!

 

End rant.

[Guest Xtech]

Theodicy does it for most of us.

 

WLC is a lawyer for God. Full of rhetorical traps, word play. Professional liar.

[Vigile]

His response to religious moderates here are quite strong:

[bornnormal]

The other arguments besides the children deaths are even more powerful in my opinion!

[ConureDelSol]

There was a comment on the OP video saying that atheists "feign concern for children" or something like that. Idiot.

[Spectrox]

Theodicy does it for most of us.

 

WLC is a lawyer for God. Full of rhetorical traps, word play. Professional liar.

 

"Lawyer for God" is a spot-on description. Either that or second-hand car salesman. Or gobshite douchebag. And yet he is the best that Xian apologetics has got! Someone who bases his entire argument on mistaking "probability" for "inevitability after the event" and says that's evidence that the Biblical God is the right one!? WTF?

[Kaiser01]

this guy is epic

[R. S. Martin]

I'm not sure if this is the debate from which the above except is taken because I'm only halfway through listening to it yet.

 

 

It's getting late and I'll have to finish another time. I listened to both Craig's and Harris's opening remarks (20 minutes each) and quite a bit of Craig's rebuttal.

 

At about Min. 56 Craig claims that on the atheistic viewpoint, humans are but puppets or machines and there is no one to give the orders for moral obligations. QUESTION: If there is no god, we are puppets or machines of what?

 

I think he failed to think this one through properly. Perhaps the atheist has taken responsibility for himself and accepts the moral imperative imposed by the natural situation of the evolution of the world and universe itself.

[BrotherJosh]

WLC, like everyone here has stated, is essentially a used-car salesman for Christianity. One thing I've always noticed is look at the real world application of the people he debates...Sam Harris is a neuroscientist doing real work and experiments. Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Dan Dennett etc...all of these guys do actual "work". Even Hitchens, who isn't considered a credentialed scientist or philosopher still writes and has been to more war-zones than almost anyone in the world. And what exactly does Craig do?He sells books.

[stryper]

Harris at the end of the debate. Basically says, He didn't respond to any of craig's logic, because the same could be said about any religion. Then basically says it was a waste of time to debate his logic because it wasn't logic.

 

Then proceeds to demolish Craig's entire debate in like 5 minutes. It's great.

[R. S. Martin]

WLC, like everyone here has stated, is essentially a used-car salesman for Christianity. One thing I've always noticed is look at the real world application of the people he debates...Sam Harris is a neuroscientist doing real work and experiments. Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, PZ Meyers, Dan Dennett etc...all of these guys do actual "work". Even Hitchens, who isn't considered a credentialed scientist or philosopher still writes and has been to more war-zones than almost anyone in the world. And what exactly does Craig do?He sells books.

 

I love what you say and gave you a point for this post a few days ago. But I should add that if writing books is a virtue, then we must credit Craig with that. He does write books and articles. See his website and Amazon.com. He also teaches at Talbot School of Theology.

 

I have now finished watching the video I posted above and Sam Harris really got to Craig. Craig was calling him names and making personal attacks such as accusing him of below-the-belt behaviour.

 

One thing happened during Q&A that was kinda funny. I'm quite sure it was a fake question but all the same Craig's response to it was worth seeing. This student pretended to have had a divine revelation the previous night with the command to tell everyone at the debate that God thinks homosexual love is just as beautiful as heterosexual love. He stuttered and stammered as though hesitant to speak. Before he could quite finish his question, Craig half rose out of his seat and told the student he was faking and that he (Craig) would not take the question. The student did not accept this response so the moderator (also a Christian) said, "You asked your question, you got an answer. Next."

 

However, the students were really sharp. They learned the rules of the game and Craig was really hard put to it. In the end, all he could do was repeat himself and accuse Harris of not refuting his claims that atheism has no foundation for moral obligations. At one point, Harris told Craig humbly and calmly across the moderator's face, "I tried to give a basis."

 

I found it noteworthy that even this took Craig aback. The next question was for him and he needed some time to compose himself before answering. And in the end he refused to acknowledge it.

 

Yeah, if you're trying to sell something that you know isn't what you claim it is, you're in trouble--especially if you're up against articulate fact-checkers such as Sam Harris. And if your livelihood depends on continuing to keep on selling the snake oil. What a miserable life that must be!

[BrotherJosh]

I love what you say and gave you a point for this post a few days ago. But I should add that if writing books is a virtue, then we must credit Craig with that. He does write books and articles. See his website and Amazon.com. He also teaches at Talbot School of Theology.

 

Good points, and I agree with all of them. I am not selling Craig short here, by no means do I consider him a stupid person, in fact the more intelligent he is, the sadder his delusion.

 

Either way, I just think that many Christians view WLC as the best they can offer, but when I see him sharing a stage with some truly innovative thinkers and scientists it irks me a bit that his work is considered more legitimate by some segments of the population. Especially, since I see Sam Harris and others like him doing what they can to progress our collective knowledge, scientific or otherwise.

[R. S. Martin]

Okay, I wrote down a few brief excepts--along with my comments--from both Craig's and Harris's speeches of

(from which the clip was taken that this thread is about), as I posted above.

 

Here are the excerpts:

 

Craig (at Minute 56) reading from Harris’s Moral Landscape: “If we have a moral duty to do anything we have a duty to avoid the worst possible misery.” But the question is the antecedent of that conditional if we have a moral duty to do anything…What I’m arguing is that on atheism I don’t see any reason to think we gave any moral duties to do anything.

 

Then Craig states his position: Moral obligations or prohibitions arise in response to the imperatives from a competent authority. For example, if a policeman tells you to pull over then because of his authority who he is you are legally obligated to pull over. What if some random stranger tells you to pull over—you’re not legally obligated to do so. Now in the absence of God what authority is there to issue moral commands or prohibitions? There is none on atheism. And therefore there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. In the absence of God there just isn’t any sort of moral obligation or prohibition that characterizes our lives. In particular, we’re not morally obligated to promote the flourishing of conscious creatures.

 

On to his next rant: “In the absence of free will, we are just puppets and puppets do not have moral responsibilities.”

 

He just goes from bad to worse. First, he takes away the atheist’s right to feel moral obligation for the promotion of the flourishing of conscious creatures (as opposed to worst possible misery). Then he claims there is nothing to make atheists human. Obviously, if you take away emotional feeling (which feeling is required to identify misery versus flourishing/well-being), you take away our humanity. Which raises the question: If Craig is reduced to obeying a moral imperative issued by a higher authority, be it a policeman or God, how is he above puppet-status himself? Where, pray, is his human feeling?

 

Not to mention that he confuses morality with legality. Any jerk can learn the rules required to put on a blue uniform and tell motorists to pull over, or a suit and tie and preach “God wills.” Society has agreed that these things are legally permissible. But it takes gut instinct and emotional IQ or empathy to be a moral person. I’m not calling them obligations or prohibitions or duties because I think ethical moral values goes over and above such rule-orientation. My guess is, this is why Harris says “if we have a moral duty to do anything…”

 

Harris at Minute 119: Dr. Craig is confused about what it means to speak with scientific objectivity about the human condition. He says things like in the point of view of science we’re just constellations of atoms and we’re no more valuable than rats or insects. As though the only scientifically objective thing that could be said about us is that we’re constellations of atoms. There are two very different senses in which we use these terms subjective and objective.

 

From here until the end of his speech at Minute 125 Harris explains the differences and similarities of religious and scientific thought on the level of subjectivity and objectivity. He says it is possible to speak objectively about our subjectivity.

 

This eight-minute speech is one of his rebuttals. If I knew how to do it, I'd cut this part and post it separately. He also says, just before the part I wrote down, that Craig is really good at twisting the meaning of his opponents' words. I loved that.

[R. S. Martin]

I love what you say and gave you a point for this post a few days ago. But I should add that if writing books is a virtue, then we must credit Craig with that. He does write books and articles. See his website and Amazon.com. He also teaches at Talbot School of Theology.

 

Good points, and I agree with all of them. I am not selling Craig short here, by no means do I consider him a stupid person, in fact the more intelligent he is, the sadder his delusion.

 

Either way, I just think that many Christians view WLC as the best they can offer, but when I see him sharing a stage with some truly innovative thinkers and scientists it irks me a bit that his work is considered more legitimate by some segments of the population. Especially, since I see Sam Harris and others like him doing what they can to progress our collective knowledge, scientific or otherwise.

 

Oh I see what you mean and I agree.

 

Incidentally, you posted while I was fixing up my notes for Post 13.

[Sexton Blake]

WC (aka William Craig) believes in progressive evolution, that god made simple stuff then let them become extinct and replaced them with more complicated stuff, etc till he got to the present level of complexity with over 99% of all species that had ever lived now extinct.

 

Sounds wasteful to me. An idea that should be flushed down the WC.

[R. S. Martin]

Very interesting development over on Craig's forums here. Apparently, Sam Harris really got to him so that he was asking on Facebook why atheists just write him off. He and followers are asking for feedback. Predictably, they're not accepting anything they're getting. But still...

[centauri]

Okay, I wrote down a few brief excepts--along with my comments--from both Craig's and Harris's speeches of

(from which the clip was taken that this thread is about), as I posted above.

 

Here are the excerpts:

 

Craig (at Minute 56) reading from Harris’s Moral Landscape: “If we have a moral duty to do anything we have a duty to avoid the worst possible misery.” But the question is the antecedent of that conditional if we have a moral duty to do anything…What I’m arguing is that on atheism I don’t see any reason to think we gave any moral duties to do anything.

 

Then Craig states his position: Moral obligations or prohibitions arise in response to the imperatives from a competent authority. For example, if a policeman tells you to pull over then because of his authority who he is you are legally obligated to pull over. What if some random stranger tells you to pull over—you’re not legally obligated to do so. Now in the absence of God what authority is there to issue moral commands or prohibitions? There is none on atheism.

Observing consequences doesn't require a god in order to impart ideas about right and wrong.

Placing ones hand on a hot stove has the consequence of being burned, and that action will most likely be "prohibited" or avoided in the future.

 

And therefore there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. In the absence of God there just isn’t any sort of moral obligation or prohibition that characterizes our lives.

This is ironic coming from a Christian, whose doctrines say that various large chunks of God's law no longer apply to people.

Christians pick and choose which laws they want to obey, and in doing so become authorities unto themselves.

They praise their ideas about the object of their worship (aka "God"), and in doing so praise themselves under a facade of obedience and faith.

Their praise is self-serving.

 

In particular, we’re not morally obligated to promote the flourishing of conscious creatures.

How is it "flourishing" a conscience creature to tell them that they must believe in an ancient tribal god that evolved into a trinity, under penalty of eternal damnation?

How exactly does that expand their conscious and make it flourish?

 

On to his next rant: “In the absence of free will, we are just puppets and puppets do not have moral responsibilities.”

The rancid "free will" myth gets trotted out again.

He ignores his Holy Bible, which teaches that some people are predestined to their fate.

 

He just goes from bad to worse. First, he takes away the atheist’s right to feel moral obligation for the promotion of the flourishing of conscious creatures (as opposed to worst possible misery). Then he claims there is nothing to make atheists human. Obviously, if you take away emotional feeling (which feeling is required to identify misery versus flourishing/well-being), you take away our humanity. Which raises the question: If Craig is reduced to obeying a moral imperative issued by a higher authority, be it a policeman or God, how is he above puppet-status himself? Where, pray, is his human feeling?

Good point, and Craig only imagines that he's serving the will of his magical sky man.

He's given no evidence that he actually believes in the complete moral code set down in the laws of the Bible god.

I'd wager he picks and chooses, like every other Christian.

[Guest Xtech]

Okay, I wrote down a few brief excepts--along with my comments--from both Craig's and Harris's speeches of

(from which the clip was taken that this thread is about), as I posted above.

 

Here are the excerpts:

 

Craig (at Minute 56) reading from Harris’s Moral Landscape: “If we have a moral duty to do anything we have a duty to avoid the worst possible misery.” But the question is the antecedent of that conditional if we have a moral duty to do anything…What I’m arguing is that on atheism I don’t see any reason to think we gave any moral duties to do anything.

 

Then Craig states his position: Moral obligations or prohibitions arise in response to the imperatives from a competent authority. For example, if a policeman tells you to pull over then because of his authority who he is you are legally obligated to pull over. What if some random stranger tells you to pull over—you’re not legally obligated to do so. Now in the absence of God what authority is there to issue moral commands or prohibitions? There is none on atheism.

Observing consequences doesn't require a god in order to impart ideas about right and wrong.

Placing ones hand on a hot stove has the consequence of being burned, and that action will most likely be "prohibited" or avoided in the future.

 

And therefore there are no moral imperatives for us to obey. In the absence of God there just isn’t any sort of moral obligation or prohibition that characterizes our lives.

This is ironic coming from a Christian, whose doctrines say that various large chunks of God's law no longer apply to people.

Christians pick and choose which laws they want to obey, and in doing so become authorities unto themselves.

They praise their ideas about the object of their worship (aka "God"), and in doing so praise themselves under a facade of obedience and faith.

Their praise is self-serving.

 

In particular, we’re not morally obligated to promote the flourishing of conscious creatures.

How is it "flourishing" a conscience creature to tell them that they must believe in an ancient tribal god that evolved into a trinity, under penalty of eternal damnation?

How exactly does that expand their conscious and make it flourish?

 

On to his next rant: “In the absence of free will, we are just puppets and puppets do not have moral responsibilities.”

The rancid "free will" myth gets trotted out again.

He ignores his Holy Bible, which teaches that some people are predestined to their fate.

 

He just goes from bad to worse. First, he takes away the atheist’s right to feel moral obligation for the promotion of the flourishing of conscious creatures (as opposed to worst possible misery). Then he claims there is nothing to make atheists human. Obviously, if you take away emotional feeling (which feeling is required to identify misery versus flourishing/well-being), you take away our humanity. Which raises the question: If Craig is reduced to obeying a moral imperative issued by a higher authority, be it a policeman or God, how is he above puppet-status himself? Where, pray, is his human feeling?

Good point, and Craig only imagines that he's serving the will of his magical sky man.

He's given no evidence that he actually believes in the complete moral code set down in the laws of the Bible god.

I'd wager he picks and chooses, like every other Christian.

 

Well done.

 

I would say Craig and his type are pretty far down the road of demonizing atheists. Way oversimplifies and polarizes.

[R. S. Martin]

I would say Craig and his type are pretty far down the road of demonizing atheists. Way oversimplifies and polarizes.

 

Absolutely that is what he does. And he's beginning to mind that the atheists simply don't give a damn to his great insights and advice, sermons and warnings, but just write them off as so much rantings and ravings. Which is what they are. See my Post 16 above.

[Guest Xtech]

I would say Craig and his type are pretty far down the road of demonizing atheists. Way oversimplifies and polarizes.

 

Absolutely that is what he does. And he's beginning to mind that the atheists simply don't give a damn to his great insights and advice, sermons and warnings, but just write them off as so much rantings and ravings. Which is what they are. See my Post 16 above.

 

WLC is cagey about it but those who read his words and worse those who use his arguments to take things further down the road of hate are on the radio everywhere it seems. This is Fox News' bread and butter.

 

Interestingly, I wiki'ed hate speech and found this definition from a broadcasters organization:

 

 

 

“Hate Speech on Commercial Radio” categorized hate speech in four different areas.

• False facts
  
• Flawed argumentation
  
• Divisive language
  
• Dehumanizing metaphors
  

 

 

This is what apologetics deals in