"There is no heaven; it's a fairy story"
Discussion
GilbertGrape said:
"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either."
pfff..Hitchens sure knew who he was.
Do you realise the standard of people that Dawkins has debated? People with expertise in their own fields, not simply a professional debater. He has said why. If you don't like it, tough. pfff..Hitchens sure knew who he was.
So we now have GG citing Lane Craig as some guru. Care to argue some of his points? Enioldjoe has been asked to, but as of yet he has cowardly declined to even mention it since. Why do YOU think Dawkins should debate him? Why do you think Craig is the besterestest debater on this subject, (any more so than an archbishop)? Why should Dawkins simply debate a sole apologist, rather than someone with actual experience in particular fields either academically, professionally, or otherwise?
Plenty have, but that is entirely their decision. Hitchens, Harris, Dacey, Arif Ahmed, dan Barker, etc. Why are you so het up about Dawkins?
Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 07:39
TheHeretic said:
GilbertGrape said:
"Don't feel embarrassed if you've never heard of William Lane Craig. He parades himself as a philosopher, but none of the professors of philosophy whom I consulted had heard his name either."
pfff..Hitchens sure knew who he was.
Do you realise the standard of people that Dawkins has debated? People with expertise in their own fields, not simply a professional debater. He has said why. If you don't like it, tough. pfff..Hitchens sure knew who he was.
So we now have GG citing Lane Craig as some guru. Care to argue some of his points? Enioldjoe has been asked to, but as of yet he has cowardly declined to even mention it since. Why do YOU think Dawkins should debate him? Why do you think Craig is the besterestest debater on this subject, (any more so than an archbishop)? Why should Dawkins simply debate a sole apologist, rather than someone with actual experience in particular fields either academically, professionally, or otherwise?
Plenty have, but that is entirely their decision. Hitchens, Harris, Dacey, Arif Ahmed, dan Barker, etc. Why are you so het up about Dawkins?
Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 07:39
The Archbishop. Does he believe in evolution?
Craig is not my guru.
Is Dawkins your guru?
GilbertGrape said:
I'm just pointing out that he isn't willing to debate William Lane Craig, and Hitchens, who had heard of WLC, did debate him.
The Archbishop. Does he believe in evolution? (As does the Vatican)
Craig is not my guru.
Is Dawkins your guru?
One day, GG, you will post something with substance.The Archbishop. Does he believe in evolution? (As does the Vatican)
Craig is not my guru.
Is Dawkins your guru?
He isn't willing to debate Craig. This is because Dawkins clearly has different reasons for debating that perhaps other people do.
The Archbishop does, I think, believe in Evolution.
I don't know if he is your Guru, but as you seem so upset about the lack of debate between the professional debater, and the Evolutionary biologist and ethologist. Why are YOU so stuck on the fact Dawkins refuses to debate him?
No, Dawkins is not my guru.
The creationists on this thread never fail to amaze me with their complete insistence upon piling crap post, upon worthless response, upon nonsensical argument.
Why SHOULD Dawkins debate Craig? You tell me. What has Craig done in the feild of research, etc, that would warrant the Oxford professor debating him?
TheHeretic said:
GilbertGrape said:
I'm just pointing out that he isn't willing to debate William Lane Craig, and Hitchens, who had heard of WLC, did debate him.
The Archbishop. Does he believe in evolution? (As does the Vatican)
Craig is not my guru.
Is Dawkins your guru?
One day, GG, you will post something with substance.The Archbishop. Does he believe in evolution? (As does the Vatican)
Craig is not my guru.
Is Dawkins your guru?
He isn't willing to debate Craig. This is because Dawkins clearly has different reasons for debating that perhaps other people do.
The Archbishop does, I think, believe in Evolution.
I don't know if he is your Guru, but as you seem so upset about the lack of debate between the professional debater, and the Evolutionary biologist and ethologist. Why are YOU so stuck on the fact Dawkins refuses to debate him?
No, Dawkins is not my guru.
The creationists on this thread never fail to amaze me with their complete insistence upon piling crap post, upon worthless response, upon nonsensical argument.
Why SHOULD Dawkins debate Craig? You tell me. What has Craig done in the feild of research, etc, that would warrant the Oxford professor debating him?
Again, Craig is not my guru.
Edited by GilbertGrape on Friday 2nd March 08:08
GilbertGrape said:
I can assure you I am not upset that Dawkins wont debate Craig. He can pick and choose his opponents.
Be confident in knowing that Craig is not my guru.
So why being it up? What was the point of your post? Can you even make a post with a simple 'this, and this, therefore this' post? Why the dance?Be confident in knowing that Craig is not my guru.
chim said:
Thing on BBC 4 now called Catholics, following a a bunch of little primary school kids in a catholic school. The poor little gits are literally getting brainwashed with a load of fairy tales and religous babble that is being put across to them as fact. It's actually painful to watch what they are doing to these kids. It's hardly surprising the religious are so deeply ensconced in their belief. It really is disgusting.
Agreed. Absolutely disgusting that kids can be lied to like that in school. We can't stop kids being lied to at home but school is a different matter. I don't know what ofsted is for if it can't put a stop to this outrage.GilbertGrape said:
S13_Alan said:
TheHeretic said:
Fail.
Quite.What I don't get is if people like the guy above know so much, and know with so much certainty that science, and people such as Dawkins are wrong... then why the f
k aren't they challenging them to a debate, not bhing about atheists on forums.GilbertGrape said:
GilbertGrape said:
S13_Alan said:
TheHeretic said:
Fail.
Quite.What I don't get is if people like the guy above know so much, and know with so much certainty that science, and people such as Dawkins are wrong... then why the f
k aren't they challenging them to a debate, not bhing about atheists on forums.So come on, GG... Why SHOULD Dawkins, (a man with much academic prowess in his field), debate someone who's sole aim seems to be as a debater. Is he a monster academic? I'll supply you with the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZlovxLZUM
The man is a self publicist. No academic prowess, and is a weak opponent. That is all. End of argument. The youtuber who made that video, Thunderf00t has 5 times as many citations for his papers, as WLC does for his. Craig is supposed to be the worlds greatest apologist, and a professional philosopher. Pretty weak sauce, don't you think? Dawkins, according to that video, has more citations for just ONE of his papers, than WLC has had in his entire career.
So again, why SHOULD Dawkins debate Craig?
Edited by TheHeretic on Friday 2nd March 08:35
TheHeretic said:
Sorry, I'm merely pondering what Craig had to do with what S13 said... Nope... Still not making sense.
So come on, GG... Why SHOULD Dawkins, (a man with much academic prowess in his field), debate someone who's sole aim seems to be as a debater. Is he a monster academic? I'll supply you with the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZlovxLZUM
Well I think that question is answered then!So come on, GG... Why SHOULD Dawkins, (a man with much academic prowess in his field), debate someone who's sole aim seems to be as a debater. Is he a monster academic? I'll supply you with the answer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emZlovxLZUM
Cool to see venomfangx again, haha he was ace.
Halb said:
Well I think that question is answered then!
Cool to see venomfangx again, haha he was ace.
He is still about after publicly apologising for basically stealing people donations for a charity, dishonestly. He is trying to either start his own church, or he has recently been offered a job at another church.Cool to see venomfangx again, haha he was ace.
KB_S1 said:
Who was this?
He was a YouTube creationist, (star of many of Thunderf00t's videos at the time), who was a loon.http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/VenomFangX#Charity_fr...
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff