TopCat wrote:laklak wrote:There isn't a debate. There's no evidence for the existence of god, evolution it true, creationism and ID are bullshit. Craig can dress up his steaming pile of shit in whatever clothes he chooses, it's still a steaming pile of shit.
I hate this sort of virtue-signalling.
Even though it's true, it's worthless, as the only people who will agree with it are people who are already convinced.
If there's any value in engaging with the WLCs of this world - and if Sean Carroll thinks it's worthwhile going up against him, that's good enough for me - then it needs to be a quality engagement. Not this sort of name-calling crap, nor the ill-prepared feeble attempts that end up with WLC's doubtless somewhat smug victories.
Anyone who would be convinced by his arguments isn't worth bothering with in the first place.
And I very much disagree with this, and despise the contempt it reveals. I have a very old and good friend, who sadly has not yet found his way out of Christianity. And not surprisingly, as he has a lot invested in it all. But he's still a good friend, a seeker after truth, albeit a hamstrung one, and in my not so humble opinion, he damn well is worth it.
Quite simply, the question I ask before I start, is "will this individual abide by the proper rules of discourse?" before starting. The reason being that I've had more than enough experience of supernaturalists who won't.
Now it may be the case, that someone turns up who doesn't actually understand those rules in the first place. If someone has not encountered those rules, and has never been taught them, I'll happily provide an exposition thereof, on the understanding that once said exposition has been provided, those rules hold from that point on in any future discourse, and any failure to abide thereby will be treated accordingly. On the other hand, if someone comes here who
does understand the rules of discourse, but duplicitously seeks exemptions for his mythology therefrom as part of his apologetic proselytising, then said individual's output is relegated to the "useful for pedagogical purposes only" category.
Furthermore, anyone committing well-documented abuses of discourse, or bringing well-documented and previously destroyed canards here, can expect to be told straight that this is what he's doing. Likewise, anyone who thinks apologetics enjoys a superior status to empirical science, will be told straight that this is not the case, and if said individual doesn't like it, then tough.
I'm not here to lower my standards to accommodate wishful thinking. My motivation for posting is to encourage development of robust ideas, and in addition to inform anyone that might not be aware of this, that
you are not your ideas. Sadly, that last elementary notion is one that's hard for supernaturalists to grasp, but if I exert the effort to educate, I expect at least some effort to be exerted developing an honest understanding of my expositions. Ideological stormtroopers for doctrine, who are simply here to lie for their doctrine, and try and twist my expositions out of all recognition, will be given the treatment they deserve.