| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
| Date: |
03 Mar 2005 12:21:03 PM |
| Object: |
TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
NOTE: This is crossposted to four unmoderated newsgroups where the
veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity is either often or occasionally
discussed.
This Saturday (March 5, 2005), William Lane Craig and Rabbi Tovia
Singer will appear on "Faith Under Fire" (PAX, 10PM EST) to
discuss/debate the Trinity. Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today, and Singer is experienced in
anti-Missionary work (i.e. refuting Christian attempts to convince Jews
of the veracity of Christianity). I'm a huge fan of Craig's position on
the doctrine (as put forth in his debate with Shabir Ally and his book
co-authored with JP Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a
Christian Worldview"). I'm not wholly convinced Rav Singer understands
the social trinitarian position, and I consider Craig's version of the
doctrine to be both logically conherent and Biblicall consistent (i.e.
it is not contradicted by the Christian Bible in its present form).
It should make for an interesting debate. When Craig appeared on "Faith
Under Fire" to debate Richard Carrier on the topic of the resurrection
of Jesus, the short time format made it difficult to get his best
arguments off. So while I think Singer is not truly capable of
discussing the philosophical nuances behind this subject, the format
may favor Rav Tovia in the eyes of viewers who are not familiar with
subject matter Craig may bring to the table (exempli gratia: the
differing interpretations of the copula employed in the assertion
"Jesus is God").
.
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 10:18:57 PM |
|
|
"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:1109874062.993347.285130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I'm a huge fan of Craig's position on
the doctrine (as put forth in his debate with Shabir Ally and his book
co-authored with JP Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a
Christian Worldview"). I'm not wholly convinced Rav Singer understands
the social trinitarian position,
IOW, you believe in Jesus & just don't like that Tovia can dispute it.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 01:41:54 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
NOTE: This is crossposted to four unmoderated newsgroups where the
veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity is either often or occasionally
discussed.
This Saturday (March 5, 2005), William Lane Craig and Rabbi Tovia
Singer will appear on "Faith Under Fire" (PAX, 10PM EST) to
discuss/debate the Trinity. Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today, and Singer is experienced in
anti-Missionary work (i.e. refuting Christian attempts to convince Jews
of the veracity of Christianity). I'm a huge fan of Craig's position on
the doctrine (as put forth in his debate with Shabir Ally and his book
co-authored with JP Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a
Christian Worldview"). I'm not wholly convinced Rav Singer understands
the social trinitarian position, and I consider Craig's version of the
doctrine to be both logically conherent and Biblicall consistent (i.e.
it is not contradicted by the Christian Bible in its present form).
It should make for an interesting debate. When Craig appeared on "Faith
Under Fire" to debate Richard Carrier on the topic of the resurrection
of Jesus, the short time format made it difficult to get his best
arguments off. So while I think Singer is not truly capable of
discussing the philosophical nuances behind this subject, the format
may favor Rav Tovia in the eyes of viewers who are not familiar with
subject matter Craig may bring to the table (exempli gratia: the
differing interpretations of the copula employed in the assertion
"Jesus is God").
Now this is funny.
PAX, a known religious held television network, is going to bring an
apologist onto a religious program, to debate religion, with another
person of some other religious persuasion.
Yeah, that's not biased in any form.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "dgillesp" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 05:03:29 PM |
|
|
"Rev. Karl E. Taylor" wrote:
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
NOTE: This is crossposted to four unmoderated newsgroups where the
veracity of the doctrine of the Trinity is either often or occasionally
discussed.
This Saturday (March 5, 2005), William Lane Craig and Rabbi Tovia
Singer will appear on "Faith Under Fire" (PAX, 10PM EST) to
discuss/debate the Trinity. Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today, and Singer is experienced in
anti-Missionary work (i.e. refuting Christian attempts to convince Jews
of the veracity of Christianity). I'm a huge fan of Craig's position on
the doctrine (as put forth in his debate with Shabir Ally and his book
co-authored with JP Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a
Christian Worldview"). I'm not wholly convinced Rav Singer understands
the social trinitarian position, and I consider Craig's version of the
doctrine to be both logically conherent and Biblicall consistent (i.e.
it is not contradicted by the Christian Bible in its present form).
It should make for an interesting debate. When Craig appeared on "Faith
Under Fire" to debate Richard Carrier on the topic of the resurrection
of Jesus, the short time format made it difficult to get his best
arguments off. So while I think Singer is not truly capable of
discussing the philosophical nuances behind this subject, the format
may favor Rav Tovia in the eyes of viewers who are not familiar with
subject matter Craig may bring to the table (exempli gratia: the
differing interpretations of the copula employed in the assertion
"Jesus is God").
Now this is funny.
PAX, a known religious held television network, is going to bring an
apologist onto a religious program, to debate religion, with another
person of some other religious persuasion.
Yeah, that's not biased in any form.
Anyone who claims to be totally unbiased, be he theist, agnostic or atheist
is only kidding himself.
Denny
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 03:01:10 PM |
|
|
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Now this is funny.
Glad I could make you laugh (or did I?). If you're happy, my brother,
I'm happy.
PAX, a known religious held television network,
is going to bring an apologist onto a religious
program, to debate religion, with another
person of some other religious persuasion.
Yeah, that's not biased in any form.
With all due respect, you're mistaken. You've never seen the show I
take it. Amazingly, Lee Strobel is the host, and I say "amazingly"
because here is the amazing part: he's actually on the level, even
handed, fair and balanced... that sort of thing (pardon the run-on
sentence). What I mean is, I used to think of Strobel as being a mere
propagandist, but he is a good host and moderator. Anyway, while the
show appears on a Christian station, it is not pro-Christian
propaganda. I recommend you watch the show, and we can all discuss our
thoughts in this thread afterwards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 03:26:06 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
Rev. Karl E. Taylor wrote:
Now this is funny.
Glad I could make you laugh (or did I?). If you're happy, my brother,
I'm happy.
PAX, a known religious held television network,
is going to bring an apologist onto a religious
program, to debate religion, with another
person of some other religious persuasion.
Yeah, that's not biased in any form.
With all due respect, you're mistaken. You've never seen the show I
take it. Amazingly, Lee Strobel is the host, and I say "amazingly"
because here is the amazing part: he's actually on the level, even
handed, fair and balanced... that sort of thing (pardon the run-on
sentence). What I mean is, I used to think of Strobel as being a mere
propagandist, but he is a good host and moderator. Anyway, while the
show appears on a Christian station, it is not pro-Christian
propaganda. I recommend you watch the show, and we can all discuss our
thoughts in this thread afterwards.
Then the PAX you are talking about, is not the same PAX I have here.
I just checked the listing, there is no such program listed in my area.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 03:38:08 PM |
|
|
Then the PAX you are talking about, is not the same
PAX I have here.
I just checked the listing, there is no such program
listed in my area.
Not for Saturday? Are you sure? See the site for the time in your area:
http://www.faithunderfire.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 04:36:42 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
Then the PAX you are talking about, is not the same
PAX I have here.
I just checked the listing, there is no such program
listed in my area.
Not for Saturday? Are you sure? See the site for the time in your area:
http://www.faithunderfire.com
Yup, there "find PAX" shows as the same channel here where I live. But
local listings to not show this program as running here on Sat. March 5.
Of course, this is not the oddest thing to happen. Remember the whole
"Saving Private Ryan" of just a couple weeks ago. Some channels showed
it, some did not.
Oh well. I'll see if I can find it for download on Sunday through
eMule. I'm sure someone will put it up.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 PLONKED by Bob
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
03 Mar 2005 08:22:34 PM |
|
|
In article <1109874062.993347.285130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
abukhamr@yahoo.com says...
Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today,
Which certainly isn't saying much.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
04 Mar 2005 08:45:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 19:22:34 -0700, quibbler <quibbler247@yahoo.com>
wrote:
In article <1109874062.993347.285130@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
abukhamr@yahoo.com says...
Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today,
Which certainly isn't saying much.
So many of them imagine that his arguments (which they don't
understand well enough to defend) should convince people who aren't
already Christian.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
04 Mar 2005 01:28:53 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer wrote:
Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today,
Quibbler wrote:
Which certainly isn't saying much.
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
So many of them imagine that his
arguments (which they don't understand
well enough to defend) should convince
people who aren't already Christian.
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian? I'm an atheist. Are
you the sort of atheist who assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic theist? There's
nothing wrong with being an atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I see no contradiction in
that. I can also tell you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 12:09:17 PM |
|
|
Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz wrote:
Abdul-Khinzeer wrote:
Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today,
Quibbler wrote:
Which certainly isn't saying much.
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
So many of them imagine that his
arguments (which they don't understand
well enough to defend) should convince
people who aren't already Christian.
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian? I'm an atheist. Are
you the sort of atheist who assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic theist? There's
nothing wrong with being an atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I see no contradiction in
that. I can also tell you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
I don't know about Lane Craig being brilliant.
I sit here in AA and watch the christian thumpers come and go.
I don't see much to convince me any of them know squat about
anything, many of them aren't even rational.
Now, if there was some brilliant apologist, say, Lane Craig
or somebody else, I would expect to see their most brilliant and telling
arguments repeated ad nauseum in alt.atheism.
The low level of 'argumentation' I see here argues there are no
brilliant apologists.
Or if they are, there are almost unread by the average
christian net debator.
Usually at best we get name dropping, C.S. Lewis, Lee Strobel,
that's about it.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 09:21:08 AM |
|
|
wcb wrote:
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian?
I'm an atheist. Are you the sort of atheist who
assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic
theist? There's nothing wrong with being an
atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I
see no contradiction in that. I can also tell
you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
I don't know about Lane Craig being brilliant.
I sit here in AA and watch the christian thumpers
come and go. I don't see much to convince me any
of them know squat about anything, many of them
aren't even rational.
Now, if there was some brilliant apologist, say,
Lane Craig or somebody else, I would expect to
see their most brilliant and telling
arguments repeated ad nauseum in alt.atheism.
The low level of 'argumentation' I see here argues
there are no brilliant apologists.
I disagree. The ability (or lack thereof) of theists to employ William
Lane Craig's arguments in an unmoderated newsgroup tells us nothing
about how brilliant Craig is. If you'd like to see Craig's brilliance,
take a look at his debates, or maybe consult his recent book
"Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview". You don't have
to agree with his ultimate conclusions (I don't) to admit that this is
a much higher calibre of pro-Christian apologia relative to just about
everything else out there. Other brilliant Christians of recent who
seem to rarely be quoted online (mainly because the average Christian
is either unaware that they exist or unable to comprehend the arguments
put forth) would include Thomas V. Morris, Brian Leftow, and Richard
Swinburne.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 09:47:02 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on 5 Mar 2005 07:21:08 -0800, "Abdul-Khinzeer
Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" <abukhamr@yahoo.com> let us all know
that:
wcb wrote:
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian?
I'm an atheist. Are you the sort of atheist who
assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic
theist? There's nothing wrong with being an
atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I
see no contradiction in that. I can also tell
you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
I don't know about Lane Craig being brilliant.
I sit here in AA and watch the christian thumpers
come and go. I don't see much to convince me any
of them know squat about anything, many of them
aren't even rational.
Now, if there was some brilliant apologist, say,
Lane Craig or somebody else, I would expect to
see their most brilliant and telling
arguments repeated ad nauseum in alt.atheism.
The low level of 'argumentation' I see here argues
there are no brilliant apologists.
I disagree. The ability (or lack thereof) of theists to employ William
Lane Craig's arguments in an unmoderated newsgroup tells us nothing
about how brilliant Craig is. If you'd like to see Craig's brilliance,
take a look at his debates, or maybe consult his recent book
"Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview".
The only thing Billy is good at is spewing *****. Otherwise,
his arguments are such that any 5 year-old could knock them down.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 11:09:29 AM |
|
|
Don Kresch wrote:
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian?
I'm an atheist. Are you the sort of atheist who
assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic
theist? There's nothing wrong with being an
atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I
see no contradiction in that. I can also tell
you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
I don't know about Lane Craig being brilliant.
I sit here in AA and watch the christian thumpers
come and go. I don't see much to convince me any
of them know squat about anything, many of them
aren't even rational.
Now, if there was some brilliant apologist, say,
Lane Craig or somebody else, I would expect to
see their most brilliant and telling
arguments repeated ad nauseum in alt.atheism.
The low level of 'argumentation' I see here argues
there are no brilliant apologists.
I disagree. The ability (or lack thereof) of theists
to employ William Lane Craig's arguments in an
unmoderated newsgroup tells us nothing about how
brilliant Craig is. If you'd like to see Craig's
brilliance, take a look at his debates, or maybe
consult his recent book >"Philosophical Foundations
for a Christian Worldview".
The only thing Billy is good at is spewing *****.
Otherwise, his arguments are such that any 5 year-old
could knock them down.
WOW! this thread sure is drawing in the angry types, eh? I think what
you wrote above is simply a gross exaggeration. Craig has not convinced
me to go theist, but I nonetheless consider his arguments to be far
from mere "*****" that a five year old could knock down. For
example, consider his book "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview." It is a rather thorough work of scholarship, even if it
ultimately fails to prove Christianity true.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
04 Mar 2005 06:44:15 PM |
|
|
In article <1109964533.482741.6360@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
abukhamr@yahoo.com says...
Abdul-Khinzeer wrote:
Craig is probably the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today,
Quibbler wrote:
Which certainly isn't saying much.
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
So many of them imagine that his
arguments (which they don't understand
well enough to defend) should convince
people who aren't already Christian.
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a Christian? I'm an atheist. Are
you the sort of atheist who assumes anyone who isn't exactly on your
wave length is some sort of dumb and/or dogmatic theist? There's
nothing wrong with being an atheist who believes Craig is the most
brilliant Christian apologist alive today. I see no contradiction in
that.
Neither do I, since the second most brilliant xian apologist is Barney
the purple dinosaur.
I can also tell you which Muslim apologist I think is the creme
of that respective cohort, and so on...
I'm hoping that Harun Yahya isn't on the top of your A-list. Unless of
course the 'A' stands for asinine.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalbullaah al-Murtad Shabazz" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 09:15:17 AM |
|
|
quibbler wrote:
Which certainly isn't saying much.
So many of them imagine that his
arguments (which they don't understand
well enough to defend) should convince
people who aren't already Christian.
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a
Christian? I'm an atheist. Are you the
sort of atheist who assumes anyone who
isn't exactly on your wave length is some
sort of dumb and/or dogmatic theist?
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist
who believes Craig is the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today. I see no
contradiction in that.
Neither do I, since the second most brilliant
xian apologist is Barney the purple dinosaur.
Well, your abusive retort aside for a moment, I think you tacitly agree
with me that stating that a person from cohort X is brilliant does not
contradict the position that the primary claims put forth by cohort X
are false. I think honest non-Christians can admit that Craig is
brilliant, without necessarily affirming his positions. For example, in
January of 2003 the Muslim intellectual Imran Aijaz wrote the following
regarding Craig in a post to a moderated newsgroup about Islam:
''Oh please, stop repeating the same old boring claim that Christians
take their beliefs on blind faith. Welcome to the new millenium.
William Lane Craig's floor mopping with Jamal Badawi was sufficient to
demonstrate exactly as to who stands where with respect to academia
(I'm not a Christian but Craig won that debate hands down)[.]''
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/fe9fd8aab01b9137
I tend to agree, and I think Craig's impressive performances in debates
with certain atheists and liberal new testament scholars also speak
volumes about the value philosophical training can have for a
conservative theists.
As for the number two man, I would agree that it drops off
significantly from there, but there are nonetheless some brilliant
Christian thinkers. Thomas V. Morris and Brian Leftow come to mind.
I can also tell you which Muslim apologist I
think is the creme of that respective cohort,
and so on...
I'm hoping that Harun Yahya isn't on the top of
your A-list.
No, I have a pretty low opinion of Harun Yahya. I would also say,
somewhat in keeping with what Imran Aijaz wrote (quoted above), that
*at present* Islam doesn't seem to possess thinkers of the same
intellectual calibre as the most brilliant Christian minds (of course,
the reverse was the case in the middle ages). Nonetheless, after
watching his four debates with Craig, I gained a great respect for
Shabir Ally. I also really have a great amount of respect for Imran
Aijaz, whose writings can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/imran_aijaz/
http://www.geocities.com/critical_discourse/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael E Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 09:41:42 AM |
|
|
In article <1110035717.019083.204680@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
abukhamr@yahoo.com says...
quibbler wrote:
Which certainly isn't saying much.
So many of them imagine that his
arguments (which they don't understand
well enough to defend) should convince
people who aren't already Christian.
So many of *THEM*? Do you believe I'm a
Christian? I'm an atheist. Are you the
sort of atheist who assumes anyone who
isn't exactly on your wave length is some
sort of dumb and/or dogmatic theist?
There's nothing wrong with being an atheist
who believes Craig is the most brilliant
Christian apologist alive today. I see no
contradiction in that.
Neither do I, since the second most brilliant
xian apologist is Barney the purple dinosaur.
Well, your abusive retort aside for a moment, I think you tacitly agree
with me that stating that a person from cohort X is brilliant does not
contradict the position that the primary claims put forth by cohort X
are false. I think honest non-Christians can admit that Craig is
brilliant, without necessarily affirming his positions.
Well, you've used the qualification "honest" which I believe cuts to the
point. There appear to be a good many Internet Atheists nowadays who
rationalize their belief system on the mistaken belief that a theist
must be stupid in order to be a theist. This, of course, is simply lazy
thinking, since it is so demonstrably false, and so easily refuted.
For example, in
January of 2003 the Muslim intellectual Imran Aijaz wrote the following
regarding Craig in a post to a moderated newsgroup about Islam:
''Oh please, stop repeating the same old boring claim that Christians
take their beliefs on blind faith. Welcome to the new millenium.
William Lane Craig's floor mopping with Jamal Badawi was sufficient to
demonstrate exactly as to who stands where with respect to academia
(I'm not a Christian but Craig won that debate hands down)[.]''
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.religion.islam/msg/fe9fd8aab01b9137
This is a bit of a different topic, but I'll lend an observation since
entering the ARI fray in September of 2001. Muslims have had 1600 years
to focus their apologetics on their primary "competitor", Christianity.
As far as (Western) Christianity is concerned, however, their primary
"competitor" has not been Islam since the Renissance. Thus, the
Christian apologetic tradition has been, until just recently, targeted
at simple disbelief, whether athest or agnostic. It's not since the
events of 9/11 has Christian intellectualism been targeted against its
old and traditional enemy, and it takes some time to hone those
apologetic knives. Men like Craig are simply in the forefront of this
process.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 04:19:40 PM |
|
|
"Michael E Craney" <mcraney@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c938f2972ee6d3b98969c@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
| Well, you've used the qualification "honest" which I believe cuts to the
| point. There appear to be a good many Internet Atheists nowadays who
| rationalize their belief system on the mistaken belief that a theist
| must be stupid in order to be a theist. This, of course, is simply lazy
| thinking, since it is so demonstrably false, and so easily refuted.
I had not even considered whether you were a theist or atheist. John
Polkinghorne is an example of a brilliant physicist and committed Christian. My
own view is that given the lack of evidence, it is not logical to commit oneself
either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief) the
extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of the
grave. What would such a position mean anyway, i.e. what would an atheist do if
the sky split and a large finger came through pointing at him? I guess even a
committed Christian would do a double take at that.
As a matter of interest, what would be your take on the riddle of Epicurus?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael E Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 05:59:51 PM |
|
|
In article <V8WdnWUUU6uXrLffRVnyug@pipex.net>,
says...
"Michael E Craney" <mcraney@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c938f2972ee6d3b98969c@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
| Well, you've used the qualification "honest" which I believe cuts to the
| point. There appear to be a good many Internet Atheists nowadays who
| rationalize their belief system on the mistaken belief that a theist
| must be stupid in order to be a theist. This, of course, is simply lazy
| thinking, since it is so demonstrably false, and so easily refuted.
I had not even considered whether you were a theist or atheist. John
Polkinghorne is an example of a brilliant physicist and committed Christian. My
own view is that given the lack of evidence, it is not logical to commit oneself
either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief) the
extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of the
grave. What would such a position mean anyway, i.e. what would an atheist do if
the sky split and a large finger came through pointing at him? I guess even a
committed Christian would do a double take at that.
As a matter of interest, what would be your take on the riddle of Epicurus?
FWIW (and vehicles such as this have only limited value in explaining
theism) the riddle sets up a series of questionable dichotomies which
trivialize the subject upon which they are focused. Having said that,
they have some value in sharpening the intellect, I think.
Most of them, like this one, assume that God operates in the same
temporal manner that we do. If put to God, I would expect (and I believe
one of the Cappadocians once worked a problem like this, although it
could be someone else) the answer would be something like "I CAN halt
evil, and I ALREADY HAVE halted evil. Now, it's just a matter of waiting
for your reality to catch up to mine....."
Having said that, I agree with you that reason becomes of limited value
as one approaches either end of the "spectrum" you describe. Nor is it
particular logical -- the theorem of Blaise Paschal comes to mind as one
way to adapt to the inherent illogic of either position.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
05 Mar 2005 10:25:08 PM |
|
|
In article <V8WdnWUUU6uXrLffRVnyug@pipex.net>,
says...
either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief) the
extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of the
grave.
Implicit in your answer is the assumption that human life or death has
some connection to knowledge about god. It is not clear that there is
any such connection. Why would the process of biological death have
any connection to supernatural information about a creator being? As
Bradlaugh and likely others have pointed out. Religion seems to assume
it, but it is not clear that it does so for any justifiable reason. It
is no more reasonable to suppose that there is an "afterlife" than to
propose that there is a "before-life".
As a matter of interest, what would be your take on the riddle of Epicurus?
I think that his theodicy riddle is a good starting point. Of course
people have had insights since then. However, I think that free will
defenses leave much to be desired in attempting to answer his question
or similar ones. BTW, Bradlaugh had quite a bit to say about the
problem of evil as well.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 03:24:36 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9433fd5d62f901989c0b@news.individual.net...
| In article <V8WdnWUUU6uXrLffRVnyug@pipex.net>,
| says...
|
| > either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief)
the
| > extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of
the
| > grave.
|
| Implicit in your answer is the assumption that human life or death has
| some connection to knowledge about god. It is not clear that there is
| any such connection. Why would the process of biological death have
| any connection to supernatural information about a creator being? As
| Bradlaugh and likely others have pointed out. Religion seems to assume
| it, but it is not clear that it does so for any justifiable reason. It
| is no more reasonable to suppose that there is an "afterlife" than to
| propose that there is a "before-life".
No assumptions. Implicit in "this side of the grave" is the unknowability of
what lies on the other side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 07:52:34 AM |
|
|
In article <O8qdnSsmBrLuU7ffRVnyvA@pipex.net>,
says...
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9433fd5d62f901989c0b@news.individual.net...
| In article <V8WdnWUUU6uXrLffRVnyug@pipex.net>,
| says...
|
| > either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief)
the
| > extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of
the
| > grave.
|
| Implicit in your answer is the assumption that human life or death has
| some connection to knowledge about god. It is not clear that there is
| any such connection. Why would the process of biological death have
| any connection to supernatural information about a creator being? As
| Bradlaugh and likely others have pointed out. Religion seems to assume
| it, but it is not clear that it does so for any justifiable reason. It
| is no more reasonable to suppose that there is an "afterlife" than to
| propose that there is a "before-life".
No assumptions. Implicit in "this side of the grave" is the unknowability of
what lies on the other side.
What other side. If you think the details are "unknowable" then how do
you even know that there is another "side"? BTW, why do you adopt the
view of unknowability? That seems a remarkable sop to the
supernaturalist view that there's something hidden and to be revealed
only through the metaphorical door of death. When you kill bacteria or
cut down a tree, do you imagine that these entities gain some great
cosmic knowledge from the experience?
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 02:56:42 PM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c94b91168160075989c0f@news.individual.net...
| > No assumptions. Implicit in "this side of the grave" is the unknowability of
| > what lies on the other side.
|
| What other side. If you think the details are "unknowable" then how do
| you even know that there is another "side"?
I don't, nobody does. Neither did I say anything of "details". You are reading a
lot into the phrase "this side of the grave" than is there - it was only used
figuratively. Kant's three unknowables - God, Freedom and Immortality.
| BTW, why do you adopt the
| view of unknowability? That seems a remarkable sop to the
| supernaturalist view that there's something hidden and to be revealed
| only through the metaphorical door of death.
Non sequitur - see above.
| When you kill bacteria or
| cut down a tree, do you imagine that these entities gain some great
| cosmic knowledge from the experience?
No. Just because you have chosen the soubriquet "quibbler", you do not have to
query everything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 05:39:09 PM |
|
|
In article <mPednasPDvHo7bbfRVnygg@pipex.net>,
says...
| When you kill bacteria or
| cut down a tree, do you imagine that these entities gain some great
| cosmic knowledge from the experience?
No. Just because you have chosen the soubriquet "quibbler", you do not have to
query everything.
What a relief! Thanks for telling me :). In any event, you finally
appear to admit that you don't imagine the death of a creature
necessarily brings on any kind of cosmic knowledge. Therefore, if there
is some great, deep knowledge out there, I don't see why it should be
out of the grasp of mere mortals.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
07 Mar 2005 05:30:29 AM |
|
|
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c95426c88165802989c1d@news.individual.net...
| In article <mPednasPDvHo7bbfRVnygg@pipex.net>,
| says...
| > | When you kill bacteria or
| > | cut down a tree, do you imagine that these entities gain some great
| > | cosmic knowledge from the experience?
| >
| > No. Just because you have chosen the soubriquet "quibbler", you do not have
to
| > query everything.
|
| What a relief! Thanks for telling me :). In any event, you finally
| appear to admit that you don't imagine the death of a creature
| necessarily brings on any kind of cosmic knowledge. Therefore, if there
| is some great, deep knowledge out there, I don't see why it should be
| out of the grasp of mere mortals.
I never took any other position. I did not spell it out because I did not expect
my words to be dissected quite so carefully.
Regards
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 11:39:19 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 09:24:36 -0000, "Richard Dell" <>
wrote:
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c9433fd5d62f901989c0b@news.individual.net...
| In article <V8WdnWUUU6uXrLffRVnyug@pipex.net>,
| says...
|
| > either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief)
the
| > extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of
the
| > grave.
|
| Implicit in your answer is the assumption that human life or death has
| some connection to knowledge about god. It is not clear that there is
| any such connection. Why would the process of biological death have
| any connection to supernatural information about a creator being? As
| Bradlaugh and likely others have pointed out. Religion seems to assume
| it, but it is not clear that it does so for any justifiable reason. It
| is no more reasonable to suppose that there is an "afterlife" than to
| propose that there is a "before-life".
No assumptions. Implicit in "this side of the grave" is the unknowability of
what lies on the other side.
So why imagine something does, when there is no reason to?
You are making an implicit assumption even if you don't realise it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 04:09:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:19:40 -0000, "Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael E Craney" <mcraney@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c938f2972ee6d3b98969c@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
| Well, you've used the qualification "honest" which I believe cuts to the
| point. There appear to be a good many Internet Atheists nowadays who
| rationalize their belief system on the mistaken belief that a theist
| must be stupid in order to be a theist. This, of course, is simply lazy
| thinking, since it is so demonstrably false, and so easily refuted.
I had not even considered whether you were a theist or atheist. John
Polkinghorne is an example of a brilliant physicist and committed Christian.
JP was a theoretical physicist and is now a clergyman. His thinking
patterns have not changed a lot because neither of those areas rely
too much on experiment. The main difference is that he has to abandon
the scientific method for his religious arguments and, as always with
these folk, eventually has to fall back on to the God-of-the Gaps
argument.
My
own view is that given the lack of evidence, it is not logical to commit oneself
either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief) the
extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of the
grave.
The problem is that, since religious belief does not have the
independent support of objective evidence that scientific propositions
have, it has to rely on personal authority. And, since it is the only
authority it has, it has to be unchallengeable. Once you doubt the
authority you have nothing else - the whole thing begins to collapse.
That is why religion will not allow its core beliefs to be challenged
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 11:43:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 10:09:27 GMT, William <tielige@mail.clara.fl.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 22:19:40 -0000, "Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael E Craney" <mcraney@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c938f2972ee6d3b98969c@news.houston.sbcglobal.net...
| Well, you've used the qualification "honest" which I believe cuts to the
| point. There appear to be a good many Internet Atheists nowadays who
| rationalize their belief system on the mistaken belief that a theist
| must be stupid in order to be a theist. This, of course, is simply lazy
| thinking, since it is so demonstrably false, and so easily refuted.
I had not even considered whether you were a theist or atheist. John
Polkinghorne is an example of a brilliant physicist and committed Christian.
JP was a theoretical physicist and is now a clergyman. His thinking
patterns have not changed a lot because neither of those areas rely
too much on experiment. The main difference is that he has to abandon
the scientific method for his religious arguments and, as always with
these folk, eventually has to fall back on to the God-of-the Gaps
argument.
My main beef about Polkinghorne, is that he lets his religious
audience think he is talking science.
IMO he is not being honest here. He should make it clear that he is
being unscientific.
He would never dream of mixing the two with fellow scientists, even
those who are religious.
My
own view is that given the lack of evidence, it is not logical to commit oneself
either way - on the spectrum of atheist (0% belief) to theist (100% belief) the
extreme ends require a burden of proof that cannot be obtained this side of the
grave.
The problem is that, since religious belief does not have the
independent support of objective evidence that scientific propositions
have, it has to rely on personal authority. And, since it is the only
authority it has, it has to be unchallengeable. Once you doubt the
authority you have nothing else - the whole thing begins to collapse.
That is why religion will not allow its core beliefs to be challenged
Nobody would challenge it if its followers didn't impose it.
And the poster has a strawman view of atheists, because we haven't
even got anything to "commit 0%" to.
He is making the mistake of thinking that the whole world revolves
around Christianity, when in the real world that is just one of
hundreds of different religions, and its deity one of thousands of
similar deity-beliefs that are only "real" to their believers.
Is he committed 0% to Zeus?
William
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richard Dell" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 04:25:24 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g2gm21pvc2qi00s3evmnmjtnl932bab2tn@4ax.com...
| And the poster has a strawman view of atheists, because we haven't
| even got anything to "commit 0%" to.
If you are referring to me, then what I mean by 0% (atheist) is someone who is
*sure* there is no God. I would maintain that this is both untenable and
unnecessary.
| He is making the mistake of thinking that the whole world revolves
| around Christianity, when in the real world that is just one of
| hundreds of different religions, and its deity one of thousands of
| similar deity-beliefs that are only "real" to their believers.
Did I say that?
| Is he committed 0% to Zeus?
Who knows? Why not Santa Claus?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: TRINITY DEBATE: William Lane Craig vs Tovia Singer |
06 Mar 2005 04:41:51 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 22:25:24 -0000, "Richard Dell" <rfdell@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:g2gm21pvc2qi00s3evmnmjtnl932bab2tn@4ax.com...
| And the poster has a strawman view of atheists, because we haven't
| even got anything to "commit 0%" to.
If you are referring to me, then what I mean by 0% (atheist) is someone who is
*sure* there is no God. I would maintain that this is both untenable and
unnecessary.
Which is applying theist thinking, premises etc where they don't
apply.
| He is making the mistake of thinking that the whole world revolves
| around Christianity, when in the real world that is just one of
| hundreds of different religions, and its deity one of thousands of
| similar deity-beliefs that are only "real" to their believers.
Did I say that?
| Is he committed 0% to Zeus?
Who knows? Why not Santa Claus?
Now you're beginning to understand.
Because to the atheist whether he is weak or strong that's a good
analogy.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
