Craig and homosexuality

patient zero · **#321** by **patient zero** » Oct 23, 2012 6:30 pm

Rumraket wrote:I must really have pissed that guy off with my comment, he's now posted this on my own youtube channel:

1GodOnlyOne wrote:You are a complete and utter moron: Dawkins is a coward and failed to show up for his scheduled debate with Dr. Craig, leaving just an empty chair and an auditorium full of derisive laughter at his expense. You can't deal with reality because you're lost in a sci-fi fantasy world in your deluded head, and your incorrect and ignorant post is deleted unread -- atheist total fail.

But now you can post the names of all those people that craig is too cowardly to debate in reply. Crazy theist total fail. :lol:

z8000783 · **#322** by **z8000783** » Oct 23, 2012 6:36 pm

Rumraket wrote:I must really have pissed that guy off with my comment, he's now posted this on my own youtube channel:

1GodOnlyOne wrote:You are a complete and utter moron: Dawkins is a coward and failed to show up for his scheduled debate with Dr. Craig, leaving just an empty chair and an auditorium full of derisive laughter at his expense. You can't deal with reality because you're lost in a sci-fi fantasy world in your deluded head, and your incorrect and ignorant post is deleted unread -- atheist total fail.

Wow, I guess that would count as a personal attack.

John

Rumraket · **#323** by **Rumraket** » Oct 23, 2012 6:54 pm

z8000783 wrote:
Rumraket wrote:I must really have pissed that guy off with my comment, he's now posted this on my own youtube channel:

1GodOnlyOne wrote:You are a complete and utter moron: Dawkins is a coward and failed to show up for his scheduled debate with Dr. Craig, leaving just an empty chair and an auditorium full of derisive laughter at his expense. You can't deal with reality because you're lost in a sci-fi fantasy world in your deluded head, and your incorrect and ignorant post is deleted unread -- atheist total fail.

Wow, I guess that would count as a personal attack.

John

Send him this in reply:

Thank you for deleting the comment i posted on your channel, 1GodOnlyOne. I can totally see how I deserved to have my comment deleted from a channel that advertises itself like this:

"As always, my channel is Youtube's foremost stronghold of free speech: anyone and everyone may post comments freely on all of the videos on my channel"?

These are your own words on the video whereto I commented. But thank you for admitting openly that posting does, in fact, NOT take place freely on your channel.

Let me sincerely apologize for having commented on your video with content you don't approve of.

Since I absolutely do not want to incite any hurt feelings or disrespect, may I use this opportunity to inquire about what, exactly, the nature of my transgression in my post was?

Clearly, my comment must have caused you quite a bit of distress and discomfort. You did, after all, not only NOT allow it to be posted on a channel openly stated to be dedicated to free expression, you actually deleted it.

Apparently it also initially prompted you to respond to my unposted and now deleted comment. But it bothered you so much that you felt you had to come to my own youtube channel and comment on it almost a full day later. I must have said something that stuck on your mind and kept bothering you. So for that, I am so very sorry.

Regarding the whole Richard Dawkins debating debacle, I can only repeat myself. You cannot fail to show up at a debate you didn't agree to participate in. There can't be an "empty chair" for you if you didn't announce that you'd be there. Just like you can't fail to show up at a job interview you didn't apply to. I'm sure an intelligent person such as yourself can agree to this. And I'm sincere in my compliment here, your video detailing the various logical failings of Hitchens could not have been made by a complete moron, after all.

Now, since you inquired about John Loftus and Jeff Lowder and reported you weren't able to find their names, I have taken the liberty of assisting you in a few google searches here:

Personal blog of John W Loftus:
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.dk/

John Loftus debates the existence of god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZd8NS43UI

Website with some of the works of Jeffrey Jay Lowder:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/

Jeffrey Lowder debates Theism vs Naturalism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNS0kWhgBIQ

patient zero · **#324** by **patient zero** » Oct 23, 2012 7:03 pm

That 1godOnlyOne fool walked right into that one. :awesome:

THWOTH · **#325** by **THWOTH** » Oct 23, 2012 10:39 pm

Rumraket wrote:I must really have pissed that guy off with my comment, he's now posted this on my own youtube channel:

1GodOnlyOne wrote:You are a complete and utter moron: Dawkins is a coward and failed to show up for his scheduled debate with Dr. Craig, leaving just an empty chair and an auditorium full of derisive laughter at his expense. You can't deal with reality because you're lost in a sci-fi fantasy world in your deluded head, and your incorrect and ignorant post is deleted unread -- atheist total fail.

Ooo, betcha quaking man, like jelly.

tolman · **#326** by **tolman** » Nov 17, 2012 7:02 pm

Corke wrote:Presenting a way to measure the soundness and quality of a point is problematic.

How about if the audience votes? They decide whether they are for or against the motion or undecided before the debate, then revote after the debate. The winner is the one who has gained the most votes. I believe there are some debates out there that do this.

That does rely on the honesty of an audience, or at least on similar levels of dishonesty among people with different prior opinions.

THWOTH · **#327** by **THWOTH** » Nov 17, 2012 8:49 pm

Aye, and many of Craig's debates are at the invitation of Christian institutions and organisations, are promoted to a Christian audience through Christian radio and TV, and are (let's face it) structured to authorise Evangelical Christian doctrine.

Corke · **#328** by **Corke** » Nov 18, 2012 3:34 pm

Damn, the dishonest audience is a problem.

Anyone got any better ideas? Measuring quality is really hard.

tolman · **#329** by **tolman** » Nov 18, 2012 4:39 pm

Corke wrote:Damn, the dishonest audience is a problem.

Anyone got any better ideas? Measuring quality is really hard.

I'd have thought, for example, that the quality of a creationist argument for the current biological situation should really be judged essentially on how convincing it is to people who demonstrably understand the current biological situation.

If someone was claiming electricity was divine magic, if they couldn't convince a meaningful number of electrical engineers, I would say they'd objectively failed even if many more people who didn't understand electricity or who had been factually miseducated about electricity agreed with them.

Likewise, if someone could be shown to have lied about facts in ways they should have been aware were lies, I think that however convincing they may have been to the relatively uninformed, their argument should be thrown out in its entirety and the process started again, if someone appropriately honest can be found.
Repeated use of the same strawman arguments or logical fallacies should be considered as being as bad as deliberate outright lying about facts when it comes to disqualifying someone from being a debater.

Corke · **#330** by **Corke** » Nov 18, 2012 4:52 pm

Ah, but then people claim that all biologists are evil and shouldn't be trusted. Or something along those lines.

It's a good idea, but the layman will look at that and think "Well, I can't empathise with these people, I can't see where they're coming from, why should I listen to them?" Look at the Dover trial, and how that failed to impress creationists.

People would be willing to follow a large crowd, however. Irreligion is currently rising amongst the teenagers, who can surf the net, listen to a range of ideas and make up their own minds, so maybe, in about forty years time, the religious will be in the minority. But I don't think a group of biologists, however large, will make many of these creationists pay attention. Project Steve is an example of that.

Therefore, not many people would be willing to listen to the results of this system, no matter how much it may make sense.

tolman · **#331** by **tolman** » Nov 18, 2012 6:18 pm

I'd argue that a process which didn't meaningfully penalise dishonesty was essentially worthless.

And that if a layperson was using ignorance and empathy as their guides, they're likely to remain in ignorance, something which is, fortunately, generally likely to be more harmful to them than to me in most modern political systems.

The main unfortunate thing is that the offspring of such people might end up inheriting some of their ignorance and miseducation, though that might be mitigated to some extent by a decent education system.

Corke · **#332** by **Corke** » Nov 19, 2012 12:47 am

I guess. Maybe I'm asking for too much.

Education is the best medicine for this kind of bullshit, for sure. I agree with your above points.

I'm a good example. I was educated very well in the sciences, which led to me becoming a deist, and then an agnostic atheist. I can dissect the flawed arguments of my family members with ease, when they try to reconvert me.

Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Re: Craig and homosexuality

Who is online