Current Events > 'The atheist can't follow the evidence where it leads.' ~ William Lane Craig

(+) Yeah! (+)

"You gotta feel a little sorry for the atheist, he can't really follow the evidence where it leads. His presuppositions determine the outcome." ~ William Lane Craig.

https://youtu.be/0tYm41hb48o?t=3467

Bruh.....


---

Assuming there is a personified deity pulling the strings is definitely going to color how you view existence.

---

wut

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Assuming there is a personified deity pulling the strings is definitely going to color how you view existence.

Not only that, this guy has dedicated his entire life to looking into things to find proof that Jesus and God are real and low and behold, every single thing ever demonstrated that the bible is true

But its atheists who have confirmation bias because they.... ask questions?

---

I'd forgotten about this dude

---

"2% of the humanity existed before Christ"

Ok so I guess that 2% doesn't get any salvation then

Also I find that stat hard to believe

---

Smackems posted...

"2% of the humanity existed before Christ"

Ok so I guess that 2% doesn't get any salvation then

Also I find that stat hard to believe

I dunno if its 2% but it's absolutely true that the population ballooned over the past 500 years . People say humanity is between 70,000 and 250,000 years old but the population during those times was small.

Even so it's a pisspoor justification for Jesus

"Actually the timing was perfect "

"What about all the people before? and the people during and after who never heard of him?"

"Mysterious ways!"

Oh so perfect and unexplainably mysterious eh?

flawless reasoning

---

Darn native Americans and their not knowing of Jesus until the 1500s

---

All religion is dumb

I remember seeing this like 8-7 years ago. Hitchens didn't really stand a chance.

TurtleInFreedom posted...

I remember seeing this like 8-7 years ago. Hitchens didn't really stand a chance.

if you say so

It was hardly Hitchens best outing and he still won pretty easily imo.

Craig literally used "Well lots of people feel like God exists " as an argument that God exists
"The lord works mysterious ways" as the answer to the problem of evil

and openly defended the notion of doing immoral things by the definition of man because God has objective morality.... The same logic that justified genocide and slavery

And this is before you get onto the timing of Jesus intervention and nonsense probability statistics claptrap

It was immensely unpersuasive and poorly reasoned. You can tell he's used to preaching to a group who already believe this shit rather than people who actually listen to what he is saying.

---

yes, creationists are morons who can't science, more at 11.

---

This is absolutely true though, theres not much different in the actual people beyond a formalized system of logic that exists out there and is being used as validation that youre right about something

the atheists Bible is 1826: Proof Must Be Physical - How I Finally Put My Foot Down And Created A System of Thought Directly Opposite and Contradictory To Someones Entire Religion Because Im Upset and We Know We Can Convert People Because We Write Papers On Shit That Already Exist (whopee!!) That People Can Easily See And Make Sense Of by Michael Jordan while a religious fanatics Bible is 0: Stuff Completely Opposite of A System of Logic Designed to be the literal Opposite thus Becoming Poisoned Fruit In Terms of Arguing Which Is More Correct by Jesus

at the end of the day its cooler to believe in imaginary shit thus I kinda gravitate towards that


---

DeadBankerDream posted...

yes, creationists are morons who can't science, more at 11.

Eh to his credit Craig believes in Evolution and the Big Bang, just that "God did it"

---

RedJackson posted...

This is absolutely true though, theres not much different in the actual people beyond a formalized system of logic that exists out there and is being used as validation that youre right about something

the atheists Bible is 1826: Proof Must Be Physical - How I Finally Put My Foot Down And Created A System of Thought Directly Opposite and Contradictory To Someones Entire Religion Because Im Upset and We Know We Can Convert People Because We Write Papers On Shit That Already Exist (whopee!!) That People Can Easily See And Make Sense Of by Michael Jordan while a religious fanatics Bible is 0: Stuff Completely Opposite of A System of Logic Designed to be the literal Opposite thus Becoming Poisoned Fruit In Terms of Arguing Which Is More Correct by Jesus

at the end of the day its cooler to believe in imaginary shit thus I kinda gravitate towards that

By imaginary shit, what exactly do you mean? Like.. everything is "because God did it"?

I feel like I need to take a drag off of a cigarette and stare off into the distance, because that is a name I havent heard in a looooong time.

Hes the buffoon who pushed the Kalam Cosmological Argument so goddamn hard, right? Or am I mixing him up with one of the other wannabe Christian philosophy geniuses?

---

Ruvan22 posted...

By imaginary shit, what exactly do you mean? Like.. everything is "because God did it"?

He probably means that the Earth is flat, which he pretends to believe.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

By imaginary shit, what exactly do you mean? Like.. everything is "because God did it"?

No you pick what imaginary bits you wanna believe in and make most sense to believe in

at least I have that choice, someone who is atheist does not have a choice at all lol they are revoked of thought since theres a paper that tells them the stars are here, there is no such thing as purpose - its the culmination of false hope we tell ourselves to motivate our lives, there is no good or evil: peoples rights do not fall on those lines

I like the story of the dude that gets swallowed up by a whale, why? Cause there was a dude who was recently swallowed up by a whale as well and the thought of that made me get all giddy


---

UnfairRepresent posted...

if you say so

It was hardly Hitchens best outing and he still won pretty easily imo.

Craig literally used "Well lots of people feel like God exists " as an argument that God exists
"The lord works mysterious ways" as the answer to the problem of evil

and openly defended the notion of doing immoral things by the definition of man because God has objective morality.... The same logic that justified genocide and slavery

And this is before you get onto the timing of Jesus intervention and nonsense probability statistics claptrap

It was immensely unpersuasive and poorly reasoned. You can tell he's used to preaching to a group who already believe this shit rather than people who actually listen to what he is saying.

I really doubt you saw the whole thing. The moral arguments Craig makes goes inadequately answered. Craig asks if morality can be objective without God, and Hitchens never goes around to answering it. It doesn't mean God exists, but it undermines any moral authority atheism might have, which makes theism a better moral choice.

I remember Sam Harris taking a crack at William Lane Craig some years later, but he fails to answer the same question either.

DeadBankerDream posted...

He probably means that the Earth is flat, which he pretends to believe.

I dont pretend to believe that, I DO believe that - provide indisputable proof and then well talk @DeadBankerDream trying the reversal of a reversal


---

RedJackson posted...

No you pick what imaginary bits you wanna believe in and make most sense to believe in

at least I have that choice, someone who is atheist does not have a choice at all lol they are revoked of thought since theres a paper that tells them the stars are here, there is no such thing as purpose - its the culmination of false hope we tell ourselves to motivate our lives, there is no good or evil: peoples rights do not fall on those lines

I like the story of the dude that gets swallowed up by a whale, why? Cause there was a dude who was recently swallowed up by a whale as well and the thought of that made me get all giddy

But you don't have a choice? You have a document too (the Bible) that you have to adhere too since it's specified you have absolute faith

Atheism is an understandable position, but theres def people who are prideful about it and refuse to admit where they are wrong or childish about it

Like Lawrence Krauss for ex. I dont trust that guy. Etc.

---

Ruvan22 posted...

But you don't have a choice? You have a document too (the Bible) that you have to adhere too since it's specified you have absolute faith

When you care about something you care to stand up against things you know for the sake of knowing more things - having absolute faith in your understanding of something is absolutely frowned upon

but absolute faith is what proven thesis sustain themselves off of, you cant dispute something that is logically correct

so this tells me either the thesis is so simple and universally agreed upon that they mightve as well donated those funds allocated that research to a better cause and or that the thesis isnt as sound or logical as it thinks it is considering theres a margin of error that absolutely gets ignored in most cases

I mean, Im not making the case for which one is right or correct

just saying that the ideologies there are basically the same in its methods

---

TurtleInFreedom posted...

I really doubt you saw the whole thing.

Sure did

The moral arguments Craig makes goes inadequately answered.

There is no answer to mysterious ways beyond calling it dumb and I as I did putting that along side claiming Gods actions are perfection.

"The lord works in mysterious ways" isnt an argument, its a (Lazy) evasion of one

Craig asks if morality can be objective without God, and Hitchens never goes around to answering it. It doesn't mean God exists, but it undermines any moral authority atheism might have, which makes theism a better moral choice.

Not really.

The idea that morality is man made therefore subject to man made flaws doesn't undermine it.

Theism doesn't get more credibility by saying "Well what if we pretend soneone exists and then pretend he is perfect and then pretend he has morals then by default whatever morals I make up now are better" that's absurd.

if anything it gets less credibility

Look at the US slave trade and civil war. Stonewall Jackson didn't like slavery and was against it as a practice.... at least he claimed to be..

But he killed his own countrymen in the tens of thousands and did so gladly to defend the slave trade because he believed (or at least pretended to believe) slavery was part of Gods grand plan and Gods morality was absolute. Black peoples inferiority to their white masters was a shame but God said so so hands tied.

One of the examples Craig uses as objective morality is rape, which ignoring the animal Kingdom something which is near exclusively only ever justified in a religious context. At least in several hundred years.

Hell even if objective morality exists as flawed human beings our interpretation of it (Especially with a being so utterly awful at communication) makes our interpretation and implementation of it subjective regardless.

Going back to rape, the objective wrong: different regions have different age of consents, people debate whether someone drunk can consent or of lying about how rich you are counts.

Even the most obvious and blunt looking moral line has nuance.

At best the notion of objective morality is a meaningless distinction.

At worst its inferior, idiotic and harmful.

It's a gigantic foolish fallacy and a total croc

I remember Sam Harris taking a crack at William Lane Craig some years later, but he fails to answer the same question either.

I haven't seen that but probably because it's a dumb question

Making absurd statements and then demanding people jump down your rabbit hole or else you win isn't how rational people have conversations, it's how small children argue.

It's dumb at the best of times, let alone when the person you're talking too is under a time limit.

---

RedJackson posted...

someone who is atheist does not have a choice at all lol they are revoked of thought since theres a paper that tells them the stars are here

Wrong. An atheist has the choice to look at that paper and the reasoning presented in the paper and choose whether or not they agree with the reasoning. If they don't agree with the reasoning, they are free to challenge the paper with their own interpretation of whatever facts and arguments formed the basis of the paper. That's literally how science progresses.

tiornys posted...

Wrong. An atheist has the choice to look at that paper and the reasoning presented in the paper and choose whether or not they agree with the reasoning. If they don't agree with the reasoning, they are free to challenge the paper with their own interpretation of whatever facts and arguments formed the basis of the paper. That's literally how science progresses.

Sounds like religion, also nah the atheist does no such thing

because this assumes the common atheist is a scientist, most of them are not thus will undoubtedly follow the path of least resistance to a conclusion like someone religious would

---

@UnfairRepresent

I don't think you've really understood what Craig was saying there. Subjective morality means that morality does not have an underlying foundation. Morality working under pluralistic conditions is bound to have some foundational conflicts, making it inferior than objective morality. It doesn't make it flawed, but it certainly has a weaker foundation than objective morality. Does this make theism more credible? Not really, unless you hold morality to some kind of value. But if you actually take a disposition, whether that be atheism or theism, this would subsequently mean that you either hold morality to a type of standard- or you do not.

So in a way you are arguing two things here: that subjective morality is flawed but that this doesn't inform theism in any way, and that morality has some kind of value. But if morality has some kind of value, who or what is informing us of it?

There's a reason why there are professional philosophers of religion who debate this stuff.

RedJackson posted...

Sounds like religion, also nah the atheist does no such thing

because this assumes the common atheist is a scientist, most of them are not thus will undoubtedly follow the path of least resistance to a conclusion like someone religious would

So, you agree that both religious people and atheists have choices? And that it's possible for people to follow either philosophy in an uncritical manner? Ok.

RedJackson posted...

This is absolutely true though, theres not much different in the actual people beyond a formalized system of logic that exists out there and is being used as validation that youre right about something

the atheists Bible is 1826: Proof Must Be Physical - How I Finally Put My Foot Down And Created A System of Thought Directly Opposite and Contradictory To Someones Entire Religion Because Im Upset and We Know We Can Convert People Because We Write Papers On Shit That Already Exist (whopee!!) That People Can Easily See And Make Sense Of by Michael Jordan while a religious fanatics Bible is 0: Stuff Completely Opposite of A System of Logic Designed to be the literal Opposite thus Becoming Poisoned Fruit In Terms of Arguing Which Is More Correct by Jesus

at the end of the day its cooler to believe in imaginary shit thus I kinda gravitate towards that

This is definitely a stupid take.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

I dunno if its 2% but it's absolutely true that the population ballooned over the past 500 years . People say humanity is between 70,000 and 250,000 years old but the population during those times was small.

The population was small, but people were born and died much more frequently. The actual number of people who existed before Jesus is close to half the number of people who have ever existed.

https://www.prb.org/articles/how-many-people-have-ever-lived-on-earth/

---

Believe whatever the fuck you like if it keeps you from killing people.

---

tiornys posted...

So, you agree that both religious people and atheists have choices? And that it's possible for people to follow either philosophy in an uncritical manner? Ok.

Oh yeah, absolutely - that is the entire point Im trying to convey

Prestoff posted...

This is definitely a stupid take.

I can assure you that while the truth hurts, it is a very necessary thing for the betterment of society

I mean look no further than CE, youll always see thats a bad faith argument

Science is very much that lol

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

low and behold

---

Never really took you as a person who shit posts, but there's always something new you learn everyday.

---

That guy said he believes the Earth is flat lol

---

RedJackson posted...

Oh yeah, absolutely - that is the entire point Im trying to convey

I can assure you that while the truth hurts, it is a very necessary thing for the betterment of society

I mean look no further than CE, youll always see thats a bad faith argument

Science is very much that lol

Science is very much what? Sorry didn't follow your grammar..

BarbaricAvatar posted...

Believe whatever the fuck you like if it keeps you from killing people.

Religion doesn't do that tho

Kinda the opposite

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Religion doesn't do that tho

Kinda the opposite

Then it shouldn't be encouraged on a large scale. But some people can't think for themselves and need to be led, they just turn to whoever gets there first with their book of nonsense.


---