Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Debate - Craig vs Hitchens

CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:02:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Robert Anton Wilson video response. Interesting.

2 hour debate, holy snap.

I'll try to watch it, even if It is kind of a stupid subject.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:11:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This guy is so stupid, it hurts to listen to him. Five minutes into his argument, and I can already tell that he is stupid.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:27:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm on to the part where he's trying to make a case for Jesus in particular. He just made an argument based on the assumption of objective morality.

I've never heard a good apologetic. This guy is a complete joke. It's just a mountain of bullsh!t. You have to be utterly ignorant to find this guy even remotely convincing.

It is maddening that people can go through so much school, and still come out a complete buffoon. It is even more maddening that people actually find this convincing.

Does anyone who agrees with this man actually understand what he is saying? Holy sh!t, it's just a mountain of stupid. This is the William Lane Craig that is lauded as some amazing apologist hero?

Please Cliff, don't tell me that you like this guy.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/3/2011 11:31:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ok, Hitchens is up now.

Let us see if he gets crushed by the mountain of bullsh!t.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:04:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Eh.. He could have done better. A bit humorous. A few fallacious appeals, but still, it's hard to get more retarded than Craig's argument.

William Lane Craig's rebuttal is that "There is no good argument that atheism is true".

He doesn't understand what atheism is. The way that W.L.C. describes God, it is completely rational to to be an atheist, which is simply the lack in belief in God. This debate is about whether there is a God or not.

The God that William Lane Craig believes in is clearly non-existent. The holes in his logic are patently obvious. He's like a walking wind bag of fallacious logic.

I don't know if I even want to watch the rest of this... Gah.. I'll do it anyway.

I'll stop giving my opinions until someone else posts.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 4:52:24 AM, Thaddeus wrote:
Not Craig's best debate, but I don't see where Cosmic is getting the whole mountain of BS thing from.

He makes the same mistake a lot of text book apologists makes(which yes, this is what he is. He has no mind of his own, as I feel this debate illustrates quite well.), which is straw manning the other side, even AFTER they correct them... Asking irrelevant or misleading questions in an attempt to create some type of emotional or rhetorical sway... and using logic that is so fallacious and presumptuous that it creates glaring holes in his case. He uses the very common appeal to ignorance in order to shift the burden of proof.. Even though he is the one who needs to prove something.

William Lane Craig is an idiot, and his arguments are only convincing to those who aren't familiar with the things he is trying to pass off as facts. He lives in a fantasy world. He doesn't know anything about the historic process, he doesn't know anything about plausibility, probability, epistemology.. He's an arrogant fool.

He's a very eloquent speaker, but nearly everything that falls out of his mouth is complete horsesh!t.

Hitchens didn't really do all that hot if you asked me, wasted a lot of time addressing irrelevant things. His point against the fine tuning argument was pretty weak, but he did manage to point out some of the bigger holes in Craig's arguments.

This was the first William Lane Craig debate I've ever seen, and I am not impressed in the slightest.

I am fairly certain that pursuing a Degree in philosophy is an utterly useless endeavor(all these apologists seem to be "doctors" in philosophy, what a joke), and if you are going for a philosophical degree, I'd urge you to do something else, less you rot your mind out from mental gymnastics and shallow minded thought masturbation.

I recommend that people watch that Robert Anton Wilson video that was posted in response. It's short, and is more intellectually stimulating than the entirety of this joke of a debate.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:21:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
^^^^

All that ranting yet you failed to address and refute any specific arguments that Craig made. Instead of claiming repeatedly that Lane Craig is using fallacious arguments, how about you actually demonstrate specifically how his arguments are wrong, otherwise youre words are vain and baseless.

Also, that's definitely not Lane Craigs best debate at all.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 12:41:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/3/2011 11:27:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Please Cliff, don't tell me that you like this guy.

I don't know the man, but I respect his debating skills which are completely different than his academic ability to make an argument. Debate is rarely settled by fact, that is why academics get rolled so easily as they attempt a debate like they are presenting a paper and then they are totally unable to deal with sophistry, rhetoric, etc. . .

What Craig has going for him is a pounding rentless platform. I am going to assert Y, he has to assert Z. He demands what the other speaker has to prove and they, in the majority of the cases actually listen to him. Of course they have no reason at all to do that and they should return and say, hold on now buddy, I am going to say W and you have to prove X, Y is not relevant and neither is Z and here is why.

The ironic thing is that Craig uses the exact same platform almost to the letter so it is very easy to research his arguments.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:07:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 12:21:24 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
^^^^

All that ranting yet you failed to address and refute any specific arguments that Craig made. Instead of claiming repeatedly that Lane Craig is using fallacious arguments, how about you actually demonstrate specifically how his arguments are wrong, otherwise youre words are vain and baseless.


It was never my intent to do so. I'm not going to hold the hands of people who can't do it themselves.

I was stating my opinion that the man is a complete buffoon. I don't need to defend my position, because I don't care whether it is respected or not.

At 5/4/2011 12:41:39 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 5/3/2011 11:27:46 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

Please Cliff, don't tell me that you like this guy.

I don't know the man, but I respect his debating skills which are completely different than his academic ability to make an argument. Debate is rarely settled by fact, that is why academics get rolled so easily as they attempt a debate like they are presenting a paper and then they are totally unable to deal with sophistry, rhetoric, etc. . .

What Craig has going for him is a pounding rentless platform. I am going to assert Y, he has to assert Z. He demands what the other speaker has to prove and they, in the majority of the cases actually listen to him. Of course they have no reason at all to do that and they should return and say, hold on now buddy, I am going to say W and you have to prove X, Y is not relevant and neither is Z and here is why.

The ironic thing is that Craig uses the exact same platform almost to the letter so it is very easy to research his arguments.

Yes, I'm beginning to see this in formalized debates. When one cares more about winning the debate than actually extracting truth from the debate, they will use any trick in the book to appear convincing, no matter how fallacious and utterly mongoloid the argument may be.

Unfortunately, the people who debate against this idiot are incompetent at dealing with his type of argument. It is very hard to climb over a mountain of bullsh!t, so I can understand why, but still.. This guy is all rhetoric. He's defending a fundamentally flawed platform.

That kind of attitude towards debate offends me greatly. A debate should be about extracting truth and educating oneself and others, not a clashing of ego and pride over who can be more convincing to the ignorant masses.

Aye, but it isn't.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:23:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:07:08 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:

That kind of attitude towards debate offends me greatly. A debate should be about extracting truth and educating oneself and others, not a clashing of ego and pride over who can be more convincing to the ignorant masses.

That is how academic debates work, in theory anyway. It is not like they are perfect, but in general they are less about winning and more about the truth. But what you are really talking about is more of a round table.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 1:36:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you are looking at a more formal presentation from a theist then Plantinga would be more suitable. His ontological argument can only be refuted if you can prove that it is impossible for God to exist. He has also refuted arguments which attempt to show it is impossible for God to exist such as the problem of evil to such an extent that even people like Mackie are forced to accept them.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 6:57:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:36:23 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
If you are looking at a more formal presentation from a theist then Plantinga would be more suitable. His ontological argument can only be refuted if you can prove that it is impossible for God to exist. He has also refuted arguments which attempt to show it is impossible for God to exist such as the problem of evil to such an extent that even people like Mackie are forced to accept them.


Fail. If that's all he can refute, he's far from refuting the notion that God's existence is impossible. There's plenty of arguments (approx. 40 of them) that demonstrate that God's existence is impossible. The Argument from Evil isn't all that great really, nor do I think it's successful in showing God to be impossible.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:04:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In the words of one atheist commentator, "Craig slapped Hitchens like a foolish child."

That pretty much sums up how I felt, Craig carried the debate by a wide, wide margin.

The only debate in which I felt Craig was really challenged was against Shelly Kagan on ethics.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:20:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 1:36:23 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
If you are looking at a more formal presentation from a theist then Plantinga would be more suitable. His ontological argument can only be refuted if you can prove that it is impossible for God to exist. He has also refuted arguments which attempt to show it is impossible for God to exist such as the problem of evil to such an extent that even people like Mackie are forced to accept them.

Actually his modal ontological argument can be refuted by simply reversing the terms (I snatched this from another board because it was easier then typing it out - it was on the II forum):

1. It is possible that a maximally great being does not exist.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being does not exist, then a possible world exists in which no maximally great being exists.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. Since there is a possible world in which a maximally great being does not exist a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world.

5. If a maximally great being does not exist in any possible world then a maximally great being does not exist in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being does not exist.

I agree that Plantinga successfully responded to the logical (deductive) problem of evil. His defense doesn't really touch the inductive problem though.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:22:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 7:04:42 PM, Contradiction wrote:
In the words of one atheist commentator, "Craig slapped Hitchens like a foolish child."

That pretty much sums up how I felt, Craig carried the debate by a wide, wide margin.

The only debate in which I felt Craig was really challenged was against Shelly Kagan on ethics.

How many Craig debates have you seen/listened too? While I think he's won a lot of them, I definitely do not agree that he was only really challenged by Kagan.
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:26:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Meatros, it's not that easy. Your revised P1 is false. You're confusing epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.

And I've watched a good number of WLC debates. So far, I've only thought that the Kagan debate was the most challenging to him.
Meatros
Posts: 1,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 7:29:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/4/2011 7:26:20 PM, Contradiction wrote:
Meatros, it's not that easy. Your revised P1 is false. You're confusing epistemic possibility with metaphysical possibility.

Please explain further.

And I've watched a good number of WLC debates. So far, I've only thought that the Kagan debate was the most challenging to him.

I thought he was challenged by Price, Armstrong, and Tabash.
jat93
Posts: 1,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2011 8:36:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Ahhhhh. These kind of debates about God annoy me, because the theist always walks away content that his individual religion has been sufficiently proven, and that's a pain in the @$$. Like, God exists, therefore I can keep believing in my God because I just justified him. But no, you didn't, you might have at best argued well for the existence of a deity, but your book is still filled with ridiculous nonsense. No matter how many ontological or teleological arguments you whip out it does not suffice as proof that your holy book is divinely inspired. Geez, I get into those kind of arguments all the time, it's actually so annoying. Alas, I rant, I rant.