Some atheists have taken this fool so seriously that they engage in formal "debates" with him. Why bother?
The basic idea here is that debates can prove something, which of course they can't. They are like football for dickless geeks.
There, I said it. Debates are stupid.
The entire field of Philosophy, which spawned the "debate" format, is bullshit. Engaging in the sport of philosophical "debate" is a waste of time. People who make their reputations in this sport are dickless geeky dumbasses. How do I know this? It's properly basic, of course. It requires no basis in other beliefs. Facts, either. Why? Because I say so. If I assert it, it is true. Word.
N.B.: Please note that the people who engage in this sport are *NOT* women. That alone should tell you that the sport is a waste of time.
The basics of debating are thus: Something is proposed. The opponent attempts to smack it down. Onlookers then argue about who won: their guy or the other side's guy. It's always "our" guy.
There are two sides. The winning side and the losing side. Neither side is the "right" side. And of course there can't be a third side, because philosophers can't count past two.
Take for example, the two-hour marathon of William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens, introduced with sports analogies, held in a basketball gymnasium at a Christian "college." WLC says he is a "professional philosopher" here. That alone should disqualify him from the realm of "People Worth Listening to."
I forgive Hitch and other atheists for engaging in this sport, because nonsense like Craig's opinions shouldn't go unchallenged. WLC's fan club uses his hackneyed arguments to hide from the reality that they are believers because they have been born into a believing society. If all they have to fall bac on is WLC's position, then watching someone with a mind take on his simplistic ravings may deconvert them.
Having heard a lot about WLC's debating skills, I decided to watch this video. I really don't see how anyone could say he's a good debater. Must be something in the rules. Maybe he's the designated shitter and he's making four-point baskets before the checkered flag comes down. Some arcane rule that isn't self-evident.
To spare you the agony, I'll summarize his performance:
Despite being a "philosopher, within a few minutes Craig's referring to astronomy and the Big Bang, which can't be uncaused because it's absurd to think of something being uncaused. Of course something can't come from nothing, except God, which can come from nothing because uhhh god is nothing? He'll cite science then delude himself that he's debunking it by logical argument rather than scientific observation.
Well isn't that conveeeeeeenient.
I think it's absurd that a "professional philosopher" has an opinion on astronomy.
This is the Cosmological argument. Oh wait, that's what he calls it. It's also called the Kalam argument, named after the medieval people who came up with it hundreds of years before Mr. Brilliant said it.
Then he introduces the Teleological Argument, which then morphs into the Cosmological argument, because that's really all he has. He's probably aware that "teleological" is often followed by the word "fallacy." The fine-tuning of the universe to create things just as they are is something he believes has to come from a mind. He throws around scientific concepts and constants, and claims life could not exist without them. Apparently, in his smarter-than-you thinking there couldn't possibly be another universe in which life doesn't exist.
Physical necessity, chance, design. (He uses his thumb plus two fingers to count them!) He claims the life-supporting universe couldn't possibly exist by chance. Apparently, while pursuing his philosophy degree he has studied statistics and astronomy such that he knows more than statisticians and astronomers.
Then we move on to The Moral Argument. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Objective morals exist. Therefore God must exist.
Yes, he said it with a straight face. He apparently believes that his morality can't be the product of his culture or genetics. Note, he is wearing a wedding ring, which my coworkers have told me is forbidden in many churches because of some quotation in Timothy and Peter (books that Bart Ehrman says were forged, btw). He is violating someone else's objective morality right there!
By his "reasoning," it's not absurd to believe those things.
But apparently it is absurd to believe that storytellers, scribes, scholars, popes, or anyone else involved with the compilation of the Bible could have made shit up. He takes the stories of the gospel as sufficient evidence that the Christian deity is in fact the one that fits the needs he laid out in the other "arguments." He doesn't bother to lay out the shortcomings of the dozen or so other creators of the universe. This would go against he black-or-white thinking of the well-honed debate skills of Mr. Absurd. If G is true then G's book is true. G's book is true, therefore G is true.
Yes, his arguments really are that stupid. And improperly basic. You'd think that somoene who has devoted his life to apologetics and philosophy would come up with something more original.
His arguments boil down to "God is true because I believe God is true." I remain unconverted.
So now that I've summarized the dumbass's "points" for you, you can skip over the bullshit and go right to the Hitchslaps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
