ispoketoanangel wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It's implicit in asking for evidence that god does not exist, or that 'atheism is true' (which is a serious category error, by the way. Some logician, your pet fuckwit).

What are you talking about? He asks for evidence that God does not exist because his opponent is supposed to defend the position that God does not exist. In no way does it mean that Craig is arguing that "You can't disprove God therefore he exists".

What a stupid thing to say. Yes, it means that Craig is arguing "if you can't disprove god then I win; and since I say god exists, ergo, god exists. Neener neener."

Not that Kraig can prove god; all he can do is lie to himself and to his immoral genocide-approving followers.

But we certainly know that outright lies, willful misinterpretations, and sneaky tricks are par for christian debaters. So we certainly don't expect Kraig to behave any better.

No, it only means that Craig wants Shook to defend his side of the debate, which is the answer "no" to the question "Does God exist?". As far as defending his own position, Craig certainly does that by presenting several arguments.

What a load of bollocks.

Debates only ever have a possibility of making any fucking sense at all if they are debates about specific positive claims. You can't have a debate based on a question, because it rapidly descends into a free-for-all steaming pile of bullshit.

I could debate upon the (positive) statement "(stated, defined) God exists". Or I could debate upon the (again, positive) statement "(stated, defined) God doesn't exist". They are, effectively, opposed claims, but both are positive statements.

I can't debate, really, on "Does (a) God exist?" - there's no positive or defined statement to address. Which God? What do you mean by God? Blah Blah Blah God?

It's pretty fucking simple. Either the God your debating the existence of is defined (and probably shown to be nonsense) or it isn't defined, and therefore there's no fucking debate. The question (if said God is undefined, or defined entirely nebulously) is rendered moot, or less than moot. It becomes an irrelevance.

When you insist that someone argue an irrelevance as though it was the same thing as something relevant, you're talking shit. What Kraig does is argue that (his nebulous, indefinable, and undefined) God might exist, therefore Jesus.

It's about as convincing as evidence for vampires on the basis that Vlad Tepes existed.

Goldenmane wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

hackenslash wrote:It's implicit in asking for evidence that god does not exist, or that 'atheism is true' (which is a serious category error, by the way. Some logician, your pet fuckwit).

What are you talking about? He asks for evidence that God does not exist because his opponent is supposed to defend the position that God does not exist. In no way does it mean that Craig is arguing that "You can't disprove God therefore he exists".

What a stupid thing to say. Yes, it means that Craig is arguing "if you can't disprove god then I win; and since I say god exists, ergo, god exists. Neener neener."

Not that Kraig can prove god; all he can do is lie to himself and to his immoral genocide-approving followers.

But we certainly know that outright lies, willful misinterpretations, and sneaky tricks are par for christian debaters. So we certainly don't expect Kraig to behave any better.

No, it only means that Craig wants Shook to defend his side of the debate, which is the answer "no" to the question "Does God exist?". As far as defending his own position, Craig certainly does that by presenting several arguments.

What a load of bollocks.

Debates only ever have a possibility of making any fucking sense at all if they are debates about specific positive claims. You can't have a debate based on a question, because it rapidly descends into a free-for-all steaming pile of bullshit.

I could debate upon the (positive) statement "(stated, defined) God exists". Or I could debate upon the (again, positive) statement "(stated, defined) God doesn't exist". They are, effectively, opposed claims, but both are positive statements.

I can't debate, really, on "Does (a) God exist?" - there's no positive or defined statement to address. Which God? What do you mean by God? Blah Blah Blah God?

It's pretty fucking simple. Either the God your debating the existence of is defined (and probably shown to be nonsense) or it isn't defined, and therefore there's no fucking debate. The question (if said God is undefined, or defined entirely nebulously) is rendered moot, or less than moot. It becomes an irrelevance.

When you insist that someone argue an irrelevance as though it was the same thing as something relevant, you're talking shit. What Kraig does is argue that (his nebulous, indefinable, and undefined) God might exist, therefore Jesus.

It's about as convincing as evidence for vampires on the basis that Vlad Tepes existed.

Playing the mystery card, like Stephen Law says. Possible leads to probable leads to proven. Yay, Jesus. That's Craig's gig, and he gets away with it.

hackenslash wrote:

Lion IRC wrote:Why is it impossible?

Because the mind is a blank slate at birth. It is impossible to have a conception of a really fuckwitted idea until you've actually grown some stupidity.

murshid wrote:I've just finished watching the debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig. Here's a link to the part 1 (of 16): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvj0TVt9Ukc.

In the debate, Craig kept on asking for evidence that "atheism is true" or evidence that god does not exist...

I can provide the evidence that atheism is true. Are you ready?



But what Dr Will demands is not some 'proof' that atheism exists, nor some justification for why atheists hold their view as an honest and truthful intellectual position, but evidence for the proposition that God does not exist, and then he seeks to set the conditions on which atheism must be shown to rest. He just doesn't get it does he? All his wibbling justifications for why God as a necessary entity at large in the universe, and which btw adhere to an epistemological model which holds a belief justified if it is believed sincerely, still does not convince the atheists to adopt the super-natural explanation. He demands that it should of course because he demands that we adhere to his logical constructs. It's an old apologetic trick, asking the opposer to justify their opposition to the satisfaction of the proposer - a satisfaction that will never be forth-coming no matter what the opposer presents one presents. This is as the heart of his, and many other's, dishonest and sophistical discourse in this area. And his dishonesty is compounded not only by insisting to set impossible conditions for the defeat of his arguments but by the fact that even when he is soundly and roundly defeated on the basis of his own logical constructs he still feel free to invoke the 'sincerity epistemology' as he did in his 1994 debate with logician Ray Bradley 'Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?' (link to mp3; play or download)