| Sandspirit |
| Posted 09/22/11 at 12:53 PM | Reply with quote #61 |
|
Quote: Deepblue- he is sophisticated enought to be asked to speak at oxford and Cambridge and put the so called " fear of God" in to atheists according to Sam Harris and according to Luke prog(an atheist) he gas never lost a debate. It's sad how cognitive dissonance combined with disdain for religion due to some emotionally scarring event as a child leaves young people like yourself to be arrogant and ignorant enough to assume you( a 19 20 year old) is a sufficient judge of what equates to a " sophisticated philosoher".
Craig has a project. He's not interested in debate or discussion. He wants to seal off christians from secular influence. He cherry picks "evidence" that will appeal to his audience - christians, mostly evangelical probably - and hammers away at this, thus, to his christian admirers, he seems to "win" the debates, although he mostly sidesteps the arguments of his opponents. He did this with Hitchens, tried but failed to do so with Kagan, he's not exactly credible, much less convincing.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 09/22/11 at 09:32 PM | Reply with quote #62 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SandspiritQuote: Deepblue- he is sophisticated enought to be asked to speak at oxford and Cambridge and put the so called " fear of God" in to atheists according to Sam Harris and according to Luke prog(an atheist) he gas never lost a debate. It's sad how cognitive dissonance combined with disdain for religion due to some emotionally scarring event as a child leaves young people like yourself to be arrogant and ignorant enough to assume you( a 19 20 year old) is a sufficient judge of what equates to a " sophisticated philosoher". William Lane Craig not interested in discussing God with atheists? *COUGH* Last time I checked it was the atheists losing interest. A project? Nope. A command from God. The only people (of little or no faith) with whom Christians are biblically permitted to avoid discussion are those who say - "NO! Go away. Get lost. Leave me alone. I dont want to hear the Good News. I dont want to know what you have to say." To such as them, the Christian is "Commissioned" to say...oh well, I'm sorry you think that, goodbye. ...and then leave, shaking the dust from their feet. Have a look around this forum if you want evidence of Mr Craig's interest.
|
| Loading... | |
| Sandspirit |
| Posted 09/23/11 at 01:09 AM | Reply with quote #63 |
|
Quote: William Lane Craig not interested in discussing God with atheists?
Quote: A project? Nope. A command from God.
The "command from God" guarantees no real discussion can take place. Craig has made it clear that his beliefs exist independently of argument or evidence. So he's not looking to engage the arguments of his opponents, he's aiming to rebutt them. He's interested in the arguments of others only to the extent that he needs to find a way to say they are wrong. You can call this discussion if you want. I call it a project.
By the way I'm not saying the atheist side of the argument is normally any better.
All in all it makes for some arid and pointless exchanges (from the pov of someone interested in real discussion where you can say things like, "I never thought of it that way before," or, "that's a thought provoking point.") |
| Loading... | |
| Jason |
| Posted 09/23/11 at 02:58 AM | Reply with quote #64 |
|
A debate is not a discussion, it is a debate.
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 09/23/11 at 03:02 AM | Reply with quote #65 |
|
You have clearly not seen enough of his work.
Check out his audio blog posts regarding debates with his opponents and the ones where he talks about the great thinkers who have influenced his own thinking. This is NOT a closed-mind.
In fact, he advocates strongly for the (scripturally sound) position of using ones open and enquiring mind to test for truth. (See 2 Timothy)
Moreover, I think you are being unfair to blame him for the fact that what he thinks is actually true. Truth does exist independently of argument and evidence. The ignorant, incorrect, mistaken, dishonest statement has no mandate to expect a "fair go" in the contest of ideas.
The way Mr Craig and his intellectual/ideological opponents resolve matters and exert persuasive influence is the same way Socrates did - by dialogue and argument and reason and logic.
Dismissing him as unwilling to listen/debate seems lame and an admission of defeat by those who have themselves run out of "stuff" to say.
|
| Loading... | |
| Sandspirit |
| Posted 09/23/11 at 04:41 AM | Reply with quote #66 |
|
Quote: This is NOT a closed-mind.
Quote: Moreover, I think you are being unfair to blame him for the fact that what he thinks is actually true.
So Craig knows the truth and thus has no need to consider anybody else's arguments. I'm sorry but this sounds like the definition of a closed mind.
Quote: Dismissing him as unwilling to listen/debate seems lame and an admission of defeat by those who have themselves run out of "stuff" to say.
You've just told me there's nothing to debate because Craig knows the truth. You obviously feel you share this absolute truth. So you're not discussing, you're preaching. These are very different activities.
Do you ever have any doubts?
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 09/26/11 at 12:30 AM | Reply with quote #67 |
|
How do you arrive at the assertion that a person who knows the truth "... has no need to consider anybody elses arguments..."?
Imagine if a person, who knew the truth, stood by and said nothing while ignorant people exchanged untruths and argued on the basis of falsehood.
Your slur against Mr Craig as "closed-minded" overlooks the fact that the pursuit of truth and wisdom depends upon the contest of ideas and engaging with ones intellectual opponent. How can anyone have their mind OPENED unless their flawed world view is challenged by someone who knows the truth?
You ask me if I have doubts. Yes. I am a complete skeptic of the unbelievable no-god hypothesis and I have yet to meet any counter-apologist or hear any atheology which does not contain fatal flaws in truth and logic. (And I am willing to give any atheist a chance.)
|
| Loading... | |
| Sandspirit |
| Posted 09/26/11 at 08:21 AM | Reply with quote #68 |
|
Quote: How do you arrive at the assertion that a person who knows the truth "... has no need to consider anybody elses arguments..."?
Imagine if a person, who knew the truth, stood by and said nothing while ignorant people exchanged untruths and argued on the basis of falsehood.
When I talk about considering another person's arguments I'm talking about listening with a mind open to the possiblity that the other person may know something you don't. Craig clearly is incapable of listening to an atheist or a muslim (for example) in this spirit.
Quote: How can anyone have their mind OPENED unless their flawed world view is challenged by someone who knows the truth?
"Someone who knows the truth" = someone like you.
Quote: You ask me if I have doubts. Yes. I am a complete skeptic of the unbelievable no-god hypothesis and I have yet to meet any counter-apologist or hear any atheology which does not contain fatal flaws in truth and logic. (And I am willing to give any atheist a chance.)
My question is, do you ever have any doubts about your own beliefs?
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 09/26/11 at 11:24 PM | Reply with quote #69 |
|
Sure.
I have doubts about my belief that my football team will do well this season.
I have doubts about my belief that most politicians try their best.
I have doubts about my belief in the long range weather forecasts.
But for me, God isnt a matter of "belief" in the probabilistic sense. God is a necessity and a certainty (even apart from the experienced reality - evidence - of His existence) and I have never seen or heard convincing testimony to the contrary.
Are you saying people who think God is real and who doubt atheism are closed-minded and therefore shouldnt take part in AvT dialogue?
What of the strong atheist who stakes their claim to being the "default true position" with a zero burden of proof and demands persuasive evidence from theists? Surely, Mr Craig isnt being closed-minded when he willingly engages with such people - at their invitation.
|
| Loading... | |
| Sandspirit |
| Posted 09/27/11 at 06:31 AM | Reply with quote #70 |
|
Quote: But for me, God isnt a matter of "belief" in the probabilistic sense. God is a necessity and a certainty (even apart from the experienced reality - evidence - of His existence) and I have never seen or heard convincing testimony to the contrary.
The key words here are "for me" though I know you don't understand this. You are absolutely convinced about the truth of your god. So what? It's just your opinion.
Quote: Are you saying people who think God is real and who doubt atheism are closed-minded and therefore shouldnt take part in AvT dialogue?
People who have no room for doubts about their belief in a particular dogma are by definition closed-minded. You justify your closed-mindedness by saying, "it's the truth." The Mormons, Jehovah's witnesses, Moonies and so on all do exactly this. What's so special about you and Craig?
I don't care whether or not Craig "debates" atheists but don't kid yourself that there's some sort of dialogue taking place. When a JW stops me in the street I'm not under any illusion that this person has the remotest interest in my opinion.
Quote: What of the strong atheist who stakes their claim to being the "default true position" with a zero burden of proof and demands persuasive evidence from theists? Surely, Mr Craig isnt being closed-minded when he willingly engages with such people - at their invitation.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Craig wants to disprove atheism and a debate is an opportunity to do so. He's not open to the possibility that the atheist may be right, he's not entering into dialogue in the hope of learning something from the atheist or the muslim or whoever, he's a dogmatist whose mind is completely closed to anything other than in-house modifications to christian dogma. And you are his follower.
|
| Loading... | |
| deepblue |
| Posted 10/12/11 at 02:46 PM | Reply with quote #71 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by SandspiritQuote: William Lane Craig not interested in discussing God with atheists?
Quote: A project? Nope. A command from God.
The "command from God" guarantees no real discussion can take place. Craig has made it clear that his beliefs exist independently of argument or evidence. So he's not looking to engage the arguments of his opponents, he's aiming to rebutt them. He's interested in the arguments of others only to the extent that he needs to find a way to say they are wrong. You can call this discussion if you want. I call it a project.
By the way I'm not saying the atheist side of the argument is normally any better.
All in all it makes for some arid and pointless exchanges (from the pov of someone interested in real discussion where you can say things like, "I never thought of it that way before," or, "that's a thought provoking point.")
Thats just the way it is. Craig is not in the business of discovering what is true. He has already decided that christianity is true. He is an apologist, not a philosopher. He wants to train his sheep in strategies to defend their blind faith. |
| Loading... | |
| Palefire |
| Posted 04/05/12 at 05:51 PM | Reply with quote #72 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Kam86
Deepblue- he is sophisticated enought to be asked to speak at oxford and Cambridge and put the so called " fear of God" in to atheists according to Sam Harris and according to Luke prog(an atheist) he gas never lost a debate. It's sad how cognitive dissonance combined with disdain for religion due to some emotionally scarring event as a child leaves young people like yourself to be arrogant and ignorant enough to assume you( a 19 20 year old) is a sufficient judge of what equates to a " sophisticated philosoher".
|
| Loading... | |
| Cochise |
| Posted 05/31/12 at 09:31 PM | Reply with quote #73 |
|
I saw the Hitchin's debate/demolition but it wasn't as satisfying as seeing S.A.M. polish off setemstraight right here in these pages.
Nice, but easy work, SAM.
|
| Loading... | |
| Copleston |
| Posted 06/16/12 at 10:51 PM | Reply with quote #74 |
|
After looking good for several debates in the past, the glory of Christopher Hitchens ran into a brick wall in April 2009 when he debated Dr. William Lane Craig at Biola University. All of his arguments were pretty much refuted by Craig in a swift and smooth way. When Hitchens had a question, Craig had an answer. Even the atheist website CommonSenceAtheism stated that Craig overwhelmed Hitchens. Hopefully Richard Dawkins will debate Dr. Craig, for he as well as Dennett are the two remaining atheist horsemen who have not been defeated by Dr. Craig.  |
| Loading... | |
