He's right. The new atheists lack intelligence
Other urls found in this thread:
he's usually right
Christcucks lose every debate they ever have.
Right because atheists like Richard Dawkins tend to "ad hominem" their way out of everything.
Atheists are fucking tards...
Dr. Craig has won over virtually every atheist. Atheists ignore that because they hate and fear the truth.
god exists. conscious is immaterial. the atheist position is not grounded in philosophy. end of story.
consciousness*
christcucks are too dumb to realize that
...
I don't think so. Dawkins is a good scientist, Hitchens was a top tier journalist and literary critic, Harris has a verbal IQ throught he roof. They were bright, they just had a limited background in philosophy
The "New Atheists" are old, smug retards who have been utterly BTFO by a skinny canuck professor who sounds like a frog.
I have to wonder if Dr. Craig would be more prone to a different position if he actually did study things like biology in depth.
The smug tryhard sitting next to him really clearly didn't know what he was talking about. Made this harder to watch
Watch 2 minutes of the Amazing Atheist and it's pretty obvious that nu-atheism is not an intellectual movement. It's mostly a rejection of bible belt fundamentalism, which most 12 year olds can figure out is pretty dumb, and that's it.
Care for a debate?
I have to wonder if you understand the philosophical argument for God at all. Biology can really only speak to biology and not much else.
you clearly have no grasp on graig's views
The new atheists just seem angry. It's like their own emotions limit them from ever looking at the big picture. Especially the dudes. Maybe they don't get enough pussy? Not sure..
and poured boiling water on my nuts
Is WLC still BTFOing these cringy fedora tipping faggots?
Craig just has a bunch of good rhetorical skills and knows how to back his opponent into a corner or overwhelm them with a question carpet bomb, but it doesn't make God real.
There is no harder trouncing, than one that consists only of facts, and it is derived dryly.
That was beautiful.
>i cant argue against his points, but he is a christian and atheism is the true religion.
Craig's a disingenuous hack in the same vein as Destiny. Win the debate at any cost and rely on the real time context of a debate to obscure holes in your logic and factual accuracy. The example that stands out in my memory is when he tried to poke holes in The God Delusion with quote mining.
>Dawkins says "Religious people say the universe must have a creator, but why doesn't that creator need a creator by that same logic?"
>WLC conveniently ignores everything in this statement except "why doesn't that creator need a creator?" and paints it as if Dawkins was saying "You can't accept a theory without an explanation for how the models contained in said theory began to exist."
You can believe in a story without believing it happened, and you can believe in God without believing he's talking to you through such a pompous fucking tool of a "philosopher." That aspect of you is too important to let someone so fucking dishonest and nasty near it.
I do. But theres something to be said for philosophical arguments having no basis for being materially true, despite a solid rational.
Every argument you fucktards make is contradictory. You require one massive miracle to explain the genesis of everything, and after that, and only after that, can you explain anything.
Nope. The atheists says "God most likely does not exist" yet they do believe that shit magically appears out of absolute nothing. Or, some of them believe that the universe has always existed. "The atoms in your body have always existed" so what fucktard? Did I always exist? I wish I could have checked out the dinosaurs. That would have been fucking cool as shit.
Their theories are shit. There is no proof that the universe has always existed. Even so, how can you say that an eternal universe could exist but an eternal God could not exist?
I meant "YES." The "Nope" was a typo...
Ugh
You are correct. But most of us when we live out a philosophy or worldview act as if there is no material difference. What I think most people actually care about at the end of the day is that their philosophy on some level makes sense to them.
People who are atheists it seems to me tend to gravitate and accept the "no God" arguments that make sense to them. Religious people do the same thing. I "knew" there was a God despite my hardcore atheist father's insistence that there wasn't one. It didn't make much sense to me that there couldn't be. On the other hand, I understand how people can be agnostic or unconcerned with the question.
>Religious people say the universe must have a creator, but why doesn't that creator need a creator by that same logic?
I thought the universe was eternal? So these atheists fucktards are contradicting themselves. Eternal universe can exist but an eternal God cannot?
Dawkins is a phony intellectual. His book is based on his own crybaby ass rhetoric.
They need several miracles just to get a lifeless earth, not sure where this idea of one came from.
Ineed...
That too, but the big bang is indisputable, with abiogenesis they can pretend like they have an answer.
no worries bro. the absolute worst offenders are the ones who say consciousness is a byproduct of brain processes. those are the real idiots
They really offer nothing.
Abiogenesis isn’t an answer either, even if we granted them functioning solar systems.
DNA contains self referential code, as in the DNA tells itself how to read and write DNA. That self referential code would have to be fully formed out of nothing before evolution can even take place as a BARE minimum, but it also needs some rudimentary code of an organism as well.
You aren’t talking about a slow process here, as no replication or evolution can occur with DNA that can’t read and write itself. The whole shebang has to occur by chance, which is beyond ludacris.
I wouldn't believe in god if I was a fat, unkempt loser either
You're misunderstanding, im not saying abiogensis is the answer in and of itself. Im saying they can say shit like "a comet crashed into earth and boom cells" and act like thats a worthy explanation.
/thread
>DURR WHY DOESN'T GOD NEED A CREATOR?!
Because that's the definition of a God, you pleb. He's timeless. Our little space time bubble we call a universe was created by He who exists outside that paradigm.
hit the nail on the head
LMFAO. thats pretty funny
You mean like this guy?
Atheists automatically lose when they refuse to show up.
>(22 KB, 720x292)
>1367872909649.jpg (34 KB, 356x438)
>356x438
It's laughable. Dawkins always refuses to debate Craig... Even the atheists are saying it is cowardice.
actually, if you go deeper to the rabbit hole, you will realize that there is a lot of truth in bible fundamentalism
No they fucking can’t because the cells still have to form somewhere else you absolute mongoloid.
>Comments disabled
How brave.
Atheism is a core tenet of cultural Marxism you fucking faggoty leaf
>Dr. Craig
I didn't know he was out of prison. What's that old grifter up to these days? Still selling snake oil to fuckwits?
I am not a biologist to be able to verify the validity of these claims and I very much doubt you are one either.
Do you not understand that the very notion of creation would be utterly nonsensical outside this universe and the causality law that governs it. There is no reason to accept the universe was "created", it would be circular logic.
>I’m retarded so I’ll just assume you are more retarded
>checkmate
This is vintage atheism right here.
idk bout that
It's utterly absurd to say that the universe has always existed.
>Movement grows larger
>More normies realizes theyve always been atheist
"Geez, why are the atheists suddently so dumb?".
Its absurdely retarded to say the universe was created
>suddenly
>Braindead Jorge thinks grammar is related to IQ
Atheists love ad hominems. "Ridicule" is all they have because not only is God un-falsifiable, but there is enough evidence to conclude that the universe and everything that exists had to have started somewhere. It did not come from absolute nothing. That is absurd.
That dumbed-down Norwegian educational system failed you I see.
To be ignorant of a highly specialized and nuanced science is not to be retarded brainlet, but to feign competence when you most likely have none, now that is embarrassing.
Any statement you can make you have to be made within the confines of the universe and the its logic. There is no reason to assume that there can be no profoundly alien mechanics beyond this.
>science is rad!
>I accept I live in a causal universe!
>my universe has no cause!
>no cognitive dissonance here!
>grammar
Why? It's far more absurd to say the universe has always existed. How many things in our observable universe can we say have always existed? As far as I'm aware, nothing. Meanwhile pretty much everything that there is that is known to us, at one point or another, was created.
Oh dear, it’s stuck on repeat.
>The eternal burger strikes again
Christians arent white
Atheist and religious are as stupid, both think they know.
>There is no reason to assume that there can be no profoundly alien mechanics beyond this
No reason to assume that there is no God either. Is there?
>The whole shebang has to occur by chance, which is beyond ludacris.
There needs to be some fallacy made for this.
Something like Appeal to Chance.
>Any statement you can make you have to be made within the confines of the universe and the its logic.
What?!
y tho?
Are you Chris Langan?
We know the approximate age of the universe as being ~13.7B years old. And that's not the shit that's in the universe. We're talking time and space themselves. There is no TIME prior to the Big Bang.
Quote the sentence where I say there is then, you dip.
Way to screw over your fellow circle-jerker brainlet
>No reason to assume that there is no God either. Is there?
There are good reasons to conclude that there is no invisible, all knowing, all present, all powerful being who watches and controls every event in the universe simultaneously.
One of those reasons is that believing such an absurd thing is unnecessary for navigating the world.
You have to shit on most laws of Physics for this to be the case
I started describing myself as a Christian just because atheists, liberals and muslims are so awful.
The contradiction in this statement lies here:
>Why is the universe so fined tuned for life?
>well there is an infinite number of universes, and this one just happened to be able to support life
I can guarantee you thats the answer he would regurgitate if he was asked that particular question.
So God does not exist, but perhaps humanoid aliens beings do? You even more stupid than I thought. Let me guess... You believe in ghosts too..
Name a single builder of civilization that wasn’t at least deist. Most believe in a personal God.
Why? Because they are smarter than you
He's really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like
Fpbp
Wow you are EVISCERATING me in this thread.
God BTFO.
Why lie? If you prefer the company of Christians, they will probably accept you (presuming you have other virtues)
>There needs to be some fallacy made for this.
There is one already is. It's called "Not being so stupid as to not understand how mathematical probability works."
The more we learn about how the universe works, the more certain we can be that it did not happen by chance. This is especially true if we use things like Occam's razor or Godel's incompleteness theorems to filter the "obvious conclusions".
>primitive man had no theory of gravity
>therefore gravity does not exist
Sorry, but I've never seen something come from nothing okay sweetie. Are you going to say the big bad universe is somehow special? Checkmate. Atheist.
Well, I believe Jesus is the son of God and died for our sins.
That's about it. That's how far I practice/subscribe to Christianity.
>the universe and everything that exists had to have started somewhere. It did not come from absolute nothing
The scientific explanation of the inflationary theory does not pretend to know what existed before the inflation started. For that you need televangelists and grifter religions.
>but perhaps humanoid aliens beings do?
Yea, the difference is that if aliens existed, we wouldn't have any reason to believe we would know about it.
If there was an all present deity interacting with me in particular, every day, I would expect that there would be some evidence of that.
sides
hmm? I don't think that's an implication of what I said, can you explain why you think it is?
I have not yet made a single statement about any god brainlet, just exposing you as a complete hack too far up his own ass.
saying the universe is eternal is an atheist thing?
I'm an atheist and I don't know if it is or not...
>701F185F-40FB-4028-B314-E(...).jpg
Fake quote. Heisenberg never said that.
I always wondered how "rational" humans would be to an alien civilization that has never heard of us (just pretending they exist). If you were a humanoid alien being that looked like something similar to Pepe the Frog, would you believe in humans?