Originally posted by Agerg
The "great" William Craig Lane!?? 😕
All he has to offer is sophistry and showmanship. He isn't in the same league as Dawkins.

I doubt you know anything about Craig other than snippets from your favorite biased websites.

I dare say you haven't read any of his books, and couldn't make it through one of them if you tried.

You're way off. And if he's such a puny man compared to your god Dawkins, why did Dawkins chicken out?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
yessir. there are atheist in foxholes. and jews. and muslims. but what you will never find in a fox hole is a christian. you might find someone professing to be a christian there. even those who pray to the christian gods, but you will never find a true christian in a foxhole.

Yes, robbie, sure.

Originally posted by sumydid
I heard the other day that Dawkins was challenged to a debate by the great William Lane Craig, and he refused. What's he so afraid of?

You need not be afraid of someone to not want to debate them,
This is akin to the running thread in the second two Back to the Future films.
Just because someone calls you chicken for refusing something doesn't make it true.

My question to you, Why should Dawkins debate this guy?

What does Dawkins get out of it?

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/643584-why-i-refuse-to-debate-with-william-lane-craig

EDIT:
Full story here

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/20/richard-dawkins-william-lane-craig

Originally posted by sumydid
You're way off. And if he's such a puny man compared to your god Dawkins, why did Dawkins chicken out?

Because he's busy and doesn't debate every nobody who comes along and 'challenges' him to a duel.

In the same way he wouldn't come along to debate you if you challenged him, and it's not because he's afraid of you either.

Originally posted by sumydid
I heard the other day that Dawkins was challenged to a debate by the great William Lane Craig, and he refused. What's he so afraid of?

hitchens already blew away all of craig's arguments.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If you cannot prove God does not exist, then how can you be absolutely sure?

Just borrowing a page from the atheist playbook.

Well I'm absolutely sure that gravity works as I expect it to but can't prove that one either! 🙂
Christian "God" is such a silly little construct (regardless of the flavour) that I can be pretty damned certain it doesn't exist.

Originally posted by Suzianne
If you cannot prove God does not exist, then how can you be absolutely sure?

Just borrowing a page from the atheist playbook.

Because while it is not possible to prove that no god of any description exists.

It is possible to demonstrate that a particular version of god is absurd and nonsensical.

For example if given the typical definition of omnipotent as infinitely powerful able to do anything,
then I can easily disprove that a god defined to be omnipotent under that definition is impossible.

Can god create a rock so big he can't lift it?,
if yes, then there is something to heavy for god to lift
so he isn't omnipotent (and thus as he's defined as omnipotent can't exist)
If no, then he can't create something to heavy for god to lift and so he isn't omnipotent,
and thus can't exist.

Which is why most people up on their apologetics define omnipotent as powerful as logically possible,
or similar.


No (interfering) god that (I have seen) ever postulated by man is even slightly plausible, and so while
I can't prove no god exists, I can reject all the man made god notions I have come across as being absurd,
And patently not true.

The Christian god as described in the bible is definitely included in this.

In the same way as I can be certain that the FSM isn't real, it was invented by people.
In the case of the FSM I can still go and find the people who made it up.

Originally posted by sumydid
You're way off. And if he's such a puny man compared to your god Dawkins, why did Dawkins chicken out?

I doubt you know anything about Craig other than snippets from your favorite biased websites.

I dare say you haven't read any of his books, and couldn't make it through one of them if you tried.
Oh well if we're playing that game I dare say William Craig Lane hasn't read my maths dissertation, and would have a much harder job making his way through that than I would pushing away his velvet sophistries to uncover where lies the validity of his arguments (or lack thereof).

*BIFF* *BAM* *KAPOWW!!!* 😏

You're way off. And if he's such a puny man compared to your god Dawkins, why did Dawkins chicken out?
As googlefudge says, why should Dawkins waste his time on him, he surely has better things to do. Where did I ever assert Dawkins is creator of the universe btw? (you call him my God)

Originally posted by Agerg
Where did I ever assert Dawkins is creator of the universe btw? (you call him my God)

As googlefudge says

It's a joke. If I have to explain it, then it loses its effect.

Originally posted by sumydid
It's a joke. If I have to explain it, then it loses its effect.

Rubbish joke. Much better is:
Why didn't the fish wake up?

It was a kipper


Hope this helps 🙂

Originally posted by sumydid
As googlefudge says

It's a joke. If I have to explain it, then it loses its effect.

Yeah, but if you come out with wacky nonsense all the time that you actually believe then
it's hard to calibrate and spot the wacky nonsense you say as a joke.

Sort of like the boy who cried wolf.

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]Why didn't the fish wake up?

It was a kipper[/b]

ummmmm, what?

Explain this one to the slow Americans, please.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because while it is not possible to prove that no god of any description exists.

It is possible to demonstrate that a particular version of god is absurd and nonsensical.

>snipping a bunch of absurd and nonsensical stuff about omnipotence<

In the same way as I can be certain that the FSM isn't real, it was invented by people.
In the case of the FSM I can still go and find the people who made it up.

um, ok, so you have blind faith that what you say is true.

okay... Ironic, but, okay.

Originally posted by sumydid
I heard the other day that Dawkins was challenged to a debate by the great William Lane Craig, and he refused. What's he so afraid of?

Most of the theologians I have heard comment on Dawkins view him as a mental midget when it comes to theology. After all, his expertise is in science.

Although I would agree with their assessment, I also understand in part some of the anger Dawkins vents towards religion. After all, they often do the same with science as Dawkins does with theology. In short, they speak about which they have no real knowledge and try to convert the masses to their way of thinking.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Same goes for me.
While it would be great if their were an afterlife,
that it was pleasant to exist in, there is no reason to suppose that one exists.
Simply because it would be nice if something were true, doesn't mean it is.

Well put.
I used to be envious of theists who had the comfort of an after-life for themselves and loved-ones ... perhaps I still am. But there is not a shred of evidence to suggest there is one.

With regard to the OP the last time I prayed (by this I mean talking to an imaginery super-being) was 30 years ago when my niece was in hospital for a heart op. It was a kind of Pascall's gambit I guess.

It's easy to see how religion developed when we are desperate for help.