William Lane Craig winning minds.... Dawkins losing favor in his homeland.

[209vaughn]

*arches eyebrow*

Topical? Really? Deducing that 'atheism' is getting 'killed' in English academics and is being turned away from by society in general because the 'king of atheism' Richard Dawkins isn't debating William Lane Craig after he said he'd debate any theist - and then deducing that Dawkins is being 'killed' in English media, a symptom of the aforementioned 'death' of atheism in England, because of a few opinion pieces? THAT is what you call TOPICAL?

Your blindness saddens me.

I'm sorry I've some how pissed you of this much. I cited 5 UK papers when making this thread, so how am I being unfair?

R/P is a place for topic based discussion, my thread fits all the R/P rules perfectly.

There are a half dozen troll threads a day in the R/p and this is not one of them.

I've obeyed all the rules and cited my sources. Can't be too mad bro, come on now.

Which threads in the R/P are acceptable then???

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I'm sorry I've some how pissed you of this much. I cited 5 UK papers when making this thread, so how am I being unfair?

You cited 5 opinion pieces from UK papers. And apparently a blog. You are aware that publishers will run ANY opinion? Including the opinion that Reptilians are controlling everything? Opinion pieces do not fact make. They also do not make for Dawkins being 'killed' in the media. Your claim is spurious.

inb4 'you are a dawkins nuthugger'

R/P is a place for topic based discussion, my thread fits all the R/P rules perfectly.

And the topic was, 'nonsensical deductions based on over-emphatic extrapolations of truly meaningless and biased ramblings'.

There are a half dozen troll threads a day in the R/p and this is not one of them.

Even if you're not trolling, you are still illogical.

I've obeyed all the rules and cited my sources. Can't be too mad bro, come on now.

Just because you can be illogical does not mean you should.

Which threads in the R/P are acceptable then???

None of them/10.

[209vaughn]

You cited 5 opinion pieces from UK papers. And apparently a blog. You are aware that publishers will run ANY opinion? Including the opinion that Reptilians are controlling everything? Opinion pieces do not fact make. They also do not make for Dawkins being 'killed' in the media. Your claim is spurious.

inb4 'you are a dawkins nuthugger'



And the topic was, 'nonsensical deductions based on over-emphatic extrapolations of truly meaningless and biased ramblings'.



Even if you're not trolling, you are still illogical.



Just because you can be illogical does not mean you should.



None of them/10.

I've been trying to come to an understanding with you, even going as far as apologizing.

What else so you want me to say? I started a thread based on current events, using UK papers as a source?

What have I done wrong? Srs.

[PowerSwede]

I've been trying to come to an understanding with you, even going as far as apologizing.

What else so you want me to say? I started a thread based on current events, using UK papers as a source?

What have I done wrong? Srs.

You are utterly pathetic, a man who's ego demands that he's right...

Jesus would have smited you first for your egotism... you pathetic little **** of a boy...

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I've been trying to come to an understanding with you, even going as far as apologizing.

What else so you want me to say? I started a thread based on current events, using UK papers as a source?

What have I done wrong? Srs.

Allow us to return to the OP.

While William Lane Craig has been given standing ovations and dominating debates at major secular universites across England. Richard Dawkins has been getting KILLED by the English media for his weak refusal to debate Theism's top gun in William Lane Craig.

Allow us to suppose that it is true that WLC has been receiving standing ovations and dominating debates at major secular universities across England. Assuming this is true, we must now make several demands of 209vaughn:

1. Prove that WLC has been getting standing ovations.

2. Upon proving this, prove the positions of those giving the ovations. Are they already fans of WLC? If so, does their applause count? No, it does not.

3. If you can prove that those giving the standing ovation were indeed neutral or opposing Craig's position previously, you must now prove WHY they were moved to standing ovation. If they were already of the mind that deism is possible, and Craig merely reinforced these thoughts, then their applause does not count. If they were applauding Craig's debating skills, but not his positions, then their applause does not count.

Conclusion: this is the first of the illogical propositions you make. You propose that atheism and the 'king of atheism,' Dawkins, are losing ground in England because Craig has been getting standing ovations. This is an illogical conclusion. In order for it to be logical, you would have to demonstrate that those giving the standing ovations were 1) opposing Craig's position before giving a standing ovation and that they were applauding his conclusions, not his debating skill, and that 2) these feelings were mirrored by the rest of England's population. You have done neither, and thus your conclusion is illogical.

I have already beaten to death this notion that Gawkins is getting 'killed' in the media. There is nothing more to say here, other than that you are highly illogical.

I suppose, in the end, I am simply more intelligent than you are. Perhaps this is the eternal difference between our minds: you extrapolate the meaning you desire out of random events, and I am free of the desire to extrapolate meaning. You are biased, I am not.

[PowerSwede]

Allow us to return to the OP.



Allow us to suppose that it is true that WLC has been receiving standing ovations and dominating debates at major secular universities across England. Assuming this is true, we must now make several demands of 209vaughn:

1. Prove that WLC has been getting standing ovations.

2. Upon proving this, prove the positions of those giving the ovations. Are they already fans of WLC? If so, does their applause count? No, it does not.

3. If you can prove that those giving the standing ovation were indeed neutral or opposing Craig's position previously, you must now prove WHY they were moved to standing ovation. If they were already of the mind that deism is possible, and Craig merely reinforced these thoughts, then their applause does not count. If they were applauding Craig's debating skills, but not his positions, then their applause does not count.

Conclusion: this is the first of the illogical propositions you make. You propose that atheism and the 'king of atheism,' Dawkins, are losing ground in England because Craig has been getting standing ovations. This is an illogical conclusion. In order for it to be logical, you would have to demonstrate that those giving the standing ovations were 1) opposing Craig's position before giving a standing ovation and that they were applauding his conclusions, not his debating skill, and that 2) these feelings were mirrored by the rest of England's population. You have done neither, and thus your conclusion is illogical.

I have already beaten to death this notion that Gawkins is getting 'killed' in the media. There is nothing more to say here, other than that you are highly illogical.

I suppose, in the end, I am simply more intelligent than you are. Perhaps this is the eternal difference between our minds: you extrapolate the meaning you desire out of random events, and I am free of the desire to extrapolate meaning. You are biased, I am not.

BLABLA****ING BLA need to spread rep before giving it to the man who shreds...

Not forgotten my friend...

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

BLABLA****ING BLA need to spread rep before giving it to the man who shreds...

Not forgotten my friend...

I gotsa spread it around some more before I rep you again too XD

I don't know how much you've been involved ITT, or how much you've read, but isn't it ridiculous? Biased? I feel as though I am in a foreign land, traipsing amongst worshipers of idols. I feel like I've been visiting a place where thought is outlawed.

Having said that, and knowing that today was a leg day for me, I retire to get some Five Guys, rent a movie, and BS with the wife for the rest of the evening. Good times. To you and yours as well, bro.

[Zeezprah]

OP, I live in the UK, and am friends with many theists. Next to none of them know who WLC is. I'm sure many Brits know who he is, but there hasn't been a recent trend in anti Dawkins/pro WLC stuff happening here in public. At all. You've got 5 papers, but as others have pointed out, they're blogs and opinion columns, so they're not that incredible.

I think Dawkins is a bit of a twat, but then I think the same of you if you're convinced that the name and exploits of WLC is reverberating throughout our towns.

[209vaughn]

Allow us to return to the OP.



Allow us to suppose that it is true that WLC has been receiving standing ovations and dominating debates at major secular universities across England. Assuming this is true, we must now make several demands of 209vaughn:

1. Prove that WLC has been getting standing ovations.

2. Upon proving this, prove the positions of those giving the ovations. Are they already fans of WLC? If so, does their applause count? No, it does not.

3. If you can prove that those giving the standing ovation were indeed neutral or opposing Craig's position previously, you must now prove WHY they were moved to standing ovation. If they were already of the mind that deism is possible, and Craig merely reinforced these thoughts, then their applause does not count. If they were applauding Craig's debating skills, but not his positions, then their applause does not count.

Conclusion: this is the first of the illogical propositions you make. You propose that atheism and the 'king of atheism,' Dawkins, are losing ground in England because Craig has been getting standing ovations. This is an illogical conclusion. In order for it to be logical, you would have to demonstrate that those giving the standing ovations were 1) opposing Craig's position before giving a standing ovation and that they were applauding his conclusions, not his debating skill, and that 2) these feelings were mirrored by the rest of England's population. You have done neither, and thus your conclusion is illogical.

I have already beaten to death this notion that Gawkins is getting 'killed' in the media. There is nothing more to say here, other than that you are highly illogical.

I suppose, in the end, I am simply more intelligent than you are. Perhaps this is the eternal difference between our minds: you extrapolate the meaning you desire out of random events, and I am free of the desire to extrapolate meaning. You are biased, I am not.

I backed up my opinion using 5 seperate UK articles. Deal with it and move on. Besides, it's a current event topical thread, not a college thesis. Grow up.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I backed up my opinion using 5 seperate UK articles. Deal with it and move on. Besides, it's a current event topical thread, not a college thesis. Grow up.

You backed up your opinion . . . with other opinions. He Who Shreds is not impressed. And is also not interested in your opinions or the other opinions of others. He Who Shreds demands that you present your methodology for determining fact from your ideological ruminations.

And this thread is definitely not a thesis, of any sort. But you dressed it up in highly illogical deductions and inferences. And now you look like a tool. The best you can do now is repeatedly claim that your thread was topical. And it was: it was topical to how to be highly illogical and ridiculous and biased. You executed your thesis beautifully, in that case.

[Zeezprah]

I backed up my opinion using 5 seperate UK articles. Deal with it and move on. Besides, it's a current event topical thread, not a college thesis. Grow up.

You posted opinions columns and blog posts. This is not indicative of anything other than the thoughts of the authors. You understand this, right?

[209vaughn]

You backed up your opinion . . . with other opinions. He Who Shreds is not impressed. And is also not interested in your opinions or the other opinions of others. He Who Shreds demands that you present your methodology for determining fact from your ideological ruminations.

And this thread is definitely not a thesis, of any sort. But you dressed it up in highly illogical deductions and inferences. And now you look like a tool. The best you can do now is repeatedly claim that your thread was topical. And it was: it was topical to how to be highly illogical and ridiculous and biased. You executed your thesis beautifully, in that case.

Current event topical thread.

"He Who Shreds" is mad. Lets move on. I'm not backing off any opinion I have, I merely pointing out ITS AND OPINION BACKED UP BY 5 UK PAPERS!

You posted opinions columns and blog posts. This is not indicative of anything other than the thoughts of the authors. You understand this, right?

Yes they were OP Ed pieces from UK. 5 seperate opinions that make me form my own opinion on whats going on in England with the Reasonable Faith Tour.

[Zeezprah]

Yes they were OP Ed pieces from UK. 5 seperate opinions that make me form my own opinion on whats going on in England with the Reasonable Faith Tour.

Cool. As someone who lives there, I should inform you not let those articles mislead you. I'm sure I could find plenty of White Supremacist articles from Americans, but I don't go to the US and think that everyone is a Nazi. He may be winning hearts and minds, but I doubt it's anything close to how much you seem to think so.

[209vaughn]

Cool. As someone who lives there, I should inform you not let those articles mislead you. I'm sure I could find plenty of White Supremacist articles from Americans, but I don't go to the US and think that everyone is a Nazi. He may be winning hearts and minds, but I doubt it's anything close to how much you seem to think so.

You wont find any mainstream papers covering any "Nazis".

WLC is not an extremest.

[PowerSwede]

I backed up my opinion using 5 seperate UK articles. Deal with it and move on. Besides, it's a current event topical thread, not a college thesis. Grow up.

No facts though, no scientific peer reviewed articles to support you in any way...

Open your anus because all you have is that, nothing more...

[Zeezprah]

You wont find any mainstream papers covering any "Nazis".

WLC is not an extremest.

I'm sure I could find some borderline racist stuff in mainstream papers, ie what we have in stuff like the Daily Mail here. And yet anyone with a brain in the UK knows that the Daily Mail is utter tripe, and that the people that read it tend to be scared of the modern world.

England is not undergoing WLC fever, man, just deal with it. I don't get why you're so adamant about this.

[PowerSwede]

You backed up your opinion . . . with other opinions. He Who Shreds is not impressed. And is also not interested in your opinions or the other opinions of others. He Who Shreds demands that you present your methodology for determining fact from your ideological ruminations.

And this thread is definitely not a thesis, of any sort. But you dressed it up in highly illogical deductions and inferences. And now you look like a tool. The best you can do now is repeatedly claim that your thread was topical. And it was: it was topical to how to be highly illogical and ridiculous and biased. You executed your thesis beautifully, in that case.

4-2-8, i have your back my good freind.

No one has an argument against the physical evidence present for this universe and the lack of a timespace when there was no timespace...

Sometimes i think religious people are just retarded per definition and then i find taht there are those that are not retarded per definition but just randomly stupid....

Kinda cute when they are nekkid and wanting but seriously... for the love of ****... i didn't do anything, i will go home to my wife and hold her soon but for ****s sakes, that is NOT very fair...

[209vaughn]

No facts though, no scientific peer reviewed articles to support you in any way...

Open your anus because all you have is that, nothing more...

It's not a scientific topic. It's a current event topic, how many times do I have to say this. LOL. PowerSwede plz go.

I'm sure I could find some borderline racist stuff in mainstream papers, ie what we have in stuff like the Daily Mail here. And yet anyone with a brain in the UK knows that the Daily Mail is utter tripe, and that the people that read it tend to be scared of the modern world.

England is not undergoing WLC fever, man, just deal with it. I don't get why you're so adamant about this.

Never said England was undergoing WLC fever. But 5 UK articles critizing Dawkins, and complimenting Craig is something to be at least noticed.

[Zeezprah]

Never said England was undergoing WLC fever.

The manner of your posting has suggested otherwise. You seem to be giving off this vibe of saying that England is quite fond of the guy, is all.

But 5 UK articles critizing Dawkins, and complimenting Craig is something to be at least noticed.

Fair enough.

[PowerSwede]

It's not a scientific topic. It's a current event topic, how many times do I have to say this. LOL. PowerSwede plz go.



Never said England was undergoing WLC fever. But 5 UK articles critizing Dawkins, and complimenting Craig is something to be at least noticed.

IOW, reality be damned, you don't care if you are awake or asleep... you are truly pathetic...

**** off you retarded piece of sheit.

[209vaughn]

IOW, reality be damned, you don't care if you are awake or asleep... you are truly pathetic...

**** off you retarded piece of sheit.

Now you're resorting to name calling, b/c you disagree with me and 5 other OP Ed's in UK. Ok PowerSwede.

[PowerSwede]

Now you're resorting to name calling, b/c you disagree with me and 5 other OP Ed's in UK. Ok PowerSwede.

For all of the pages people have been playing "be kind to the retard" but i'm not one of them, i don't like you at all, i don't like anyone of your kind and i'll **** you up if i ever cross path with you.

Is that ****ing clear?

This discussion is now over.

[209vaughn]

For all of the pages people have been playing "be kind to the retard" but i'm not one of them, i don't like you at all, i don't like anyone of your kind and i'll **** you up if i ever cross path with you.

Is that ****ing clear?

This discussion is now over.

Ok PowerSwede.

[Rune]

For all of the pages people have been playing "be kind to the retard" but i'm not one of them, i don't like you at all, i don't like anyone of your kind and i'll **** you up if i ever cross path with you.

Is that ****ing clear?

This discussion is now over.

[Inev]

Upon seeing the Overwhelming supply of dumb posts and retarded comments spreading. i have decided to apply the neg button in liberal amounts. you will not be negged for a genuine post which seeks debate. But you will be negged for posts which do not contribute in any way to the pursuit of knowledge. So if you are negged by me, know it is because i think you are genuinely stupid, its nothing personal.

Interesting. Tell me more.

Although when i have to read it it sounds gay. So i am changing it.

[guyver79]

Intresting thread so far, I live in the uk and have read several dawkins books, and im not about to become christian on the basis of Dawkins not wanting to debate Craig and i doubt many staunch christians would lose their faith, if on the same day Dawkins held a seminar and put out an empty chair for Jesus to sit in, after all he is due back and is very late!


Whilst William lane Craig is obviously a very good debater, i feel as though i am missing something when he talks, it seems to amount to nothing, and i apologise in advance if i've misunderstood his arguements so please correct me if im wrong as i only have a laymans understanding of these subjects!

But Craig's main arguements tend to be Cause and effect of the big bang using the kalam cosmoligical arguement, morals, fine tuning and the resurrection of christ.

So again please correct me if im wrong but (im not going to go into detail in this post because a quick google can answer these)

I thought anything before (and i dont really want to use the word before because it gives some indication of time) the big bang is an unknown? all craig is doing here is making an assumption? unless Craig knows something that the physicists at CERN dont know?

Morals, i thought were nothing more than a learned behavior thats product of your enviroment coupled with the very real chemical reactions in the brain which we call "emotions"?? for example the morals of a ****li pirate would be different from an irish housewife?

Fine tuning? if you think the universe was "Created" you would have to agree that the universe is fine tuned to make sure life doesnt exsist! especially human life, even most of the earth in inhospitable to human life!

And the resurrection? i dont know where to begin on this one, Craig calls it fact, but no doubt Craig would then argue my understanding of facts! lol, reminds me of when i did jury service, the defense talked about everything but the actual case!!!

Dawkins main gripe with creationists tends to be from their misunderstanding of science, and how scientific method works, in particular evolution which is dawkins forte and since craig is agnostic when it comes to evolution (suprise, suprise!) so it somewhat take the wind out of dawkins sail.

So Craig sticks to unknowns then lets his gift of the gab do the rest, where is Dawkins tends to (espacially when it comes to evolution) present facts.

[Meatros]

Never said England was undergoing WLC fever. But 5 UK articles critizing Dawkins, and complimenting Craig is something to be at least noticed.

When The God Delusion came out I seem to recall quite a few negative pieces in various papers. One by Plantinga, if memory serves.

I don't think his refusal to debate Craig is bigger than that (the initial theistic negativity).

Craig is a good debater. He has his tactics down pat. I think he generally wins his debates (point wise). I think the telling thing is that no other theist comes close to him. Practically any other debate, even among Theists who blatantly rip Craig off, (say Fernandez) do not have such a win record. Those debates are much much closer and we have to keep in mind that those Christians are being trained in apologetics. They are not going up against people being trained at schools that teach counter apologetics.

I think that is telling.

When Craig debates a philosopher, say Law or Minnick (?), both of which he's done in the last two weeks, it's apparent that his debate strategy (debate inflation) is key to his victories. When delving into the arguments, Craig is inconsistent and does not do as well.

[thorton]

I found it telling that Antony Flew expressed a declaration of deism belief due to the evidence after debating William. Even Sam Harris has acknowledged that Williams arguments are enticing and powerful

[Meatros]

I found it telling that Antony Flew expressed a declaration of deism belief due to the evidence after debating William. Even Sam Harris has acknowledged that Williams arguments are enticing and powerful

That's not exactly how it happened with Flew. It took ten years of correspondence from theists (IIRC) to sway his mind to *deism* and then it was based on faulty science. There was also good reason to believe that Flew's mind was slipping by that point.

But even if that were not the case, I fail to see how that actually responds to what I wrote. I'm not saying that Craig's arguments are completely without merit or bad, necessarily.

What I'm specifically pointing out is that it's suspect that Craig is head and shoulders above his other theistic brethren. This should give someone pause, don't you think? Why aren't his apologetic brethren slaughtering atheists in the same fashion Craig is?

[HJC]

i cant believe you think WLC is even a good debater? strong wtf? all he does it rap up old arguments everyone's heard before in linguistic gymnastics. I watch so many of his debates and I've never heard a single new argument for the existence of god/gods and to go further never heard a new argument that the judeo-christian god is correct. every argument brought forth by all theists boil down to is just arguments from ignorance.