Evidence for God from Science

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Some genius decided to post how he thought WLC was a child molestor, and it started this whole thread of people repeating it because they hate the guy. I saw more Ad Hominem attacks than actual quotes used by Craig in the comment section, pro or con. I can only imagine what its like for a Christian who doesn't have very strong faith who is under attack from these scumbags.

Not only can I imagine it, but I know exactly what it's like. Being treated like that is exactly what drove me into apologetics, albeit not directly. I don't understand at all why the common atheist is so angry as to refuse to consider or think reasonably about even the possibility of the super-natural actually existing.

I feel like the hatred that is shown by some of these people is almost like a meta-proof against their position. If they're position truly is logical, rational, and reasonable, why does hatred play such a heavy-handed role?

I think the actual answer is because they're positions aren't always logical, rational, and reasonable, but it would be interesting to pose this question. At the same time... having asked an atheist I know why he is so hateful, he just seemed to turn a blind eye to everything he'd ever written (much of it truly hateful!) and went on a rant about how he loves being open-minded and has plenty of Christian friends. I think sometimes you have to wait til people get to a point where they put down their barriers and blinders before what you say becomes something to talk about instead of something to prove wrong.

Reactionary wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:Some genius decided to post how he thought WLC was a child molestor, and it started this whole thread of people repeating it because they hate the guy.

...and what a surprise, his comment turned out to become top-rated.

What he meant to say is, if I interpreted it right, that you can state that someone is a child molestor, without evidence, but because you have faith.
Again -

People never fail to impress me. And I don't mean that in a good way...

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I feel like the hatred that is shown by some of these people is almost like a meta-proof against their position. If they're position truly is logical, rational, and reasonable, why does hatred play such a heavy-handed role?

I think the actual answer is because they're positions aren't always logical, rational, and reasonable, but it would be interesting to pose this question. At the same time... having asked an atheist I know why he is so hateful, he just seemed to turn a blind eye to everything he'd ever written (much of it truly hateful!) and went on a rant about how he loves being open-minded and has plenty of Christian friends. I think sometimes you have to wait til people get to a point where they put down their barriers and blinders before what you say becomes something to talk about instead of something to prove wrong.

That's one way to look at it, but the atheist would never let you get away with saying that. :p

I think Harris' "great idea" is a different wording of hedonism, that is: hedonism = morality. So in his view, Hell would be immoral, right? Besides, he conveniently avoids the question of: "How can you say suffering is immoral?" by saying: "You don't know what you're talking about" in his opening speech . I'm afraid some of us do. Really, Harris is not discussing objective morality, he's discussing "objective morality" that he made up just like Craig said in his opening speech. Really, Harris should admit that he doesn't believe in objective morality, he believes in "objective morality" that he made up. How can you make morals from something not moral? You can't. You can only pretend that they are real.

I think its funny how completely full of it so many atheists are. I read comments that are incredibly arrogant and condescending, and yet I'm so used to it by now that I look past the ridicule to see what they're actually saying... so often what they are actually saying is NOTHING. WLC's two recent debates with Harris and Krause, I was silly enough to expect better but the exact same thing happened. All they did was rant and rave, they didn't address any of his points. I don't see how any honest person could possibly say anybody other than Craig won those two debates. How completely a guy like Harris can completely misunderstand standard arguments and then use ad hominems and ridicule as his primary weapons, its just ridiculous.

And yet atheists still think they they "won", its pretty telling. Occasionally you will meet a couple of honest atheists, usually the more intellectual ones, who admit that Craig did indeed one. Every now and then I see those comments like "Come on guys, I know he's not on our side but its pretty obvious who won that debate".

Oh, and Harris' idea is ridiculous, and frankly I find the idea of objective morality without God as pretty ridiculous as well.

narnia4 wrote:I think its funny how completely full of it so many atheists are. I read comments that are incredibly arrogant and condescending, and yet I'm so used to it by now that I look past the ridicule to see what they're actually saying... so often what they are actually saying is NOTHING.

Indeed so. There is very little hidden behind the "smokescreens" they create. Of course, since they are at least subconsciously aware of that fact, you will rarely find them on a forum like this one. Many have tried to discredit this forum, but I don't really see many, if any, atheists coming here and debating us.

The thing is, a forum like this one enables you to quote the person you're debating, and organize a well thought out response. Most Internet atheists are afraid of an honest debate, so instead, you'll find them lurking on message boards (with a character limit, they especially like those!), or on Facebook, where they'll comment on every topic that has any connection to Christianity whatsoever, anxious to point out that they're so smart to be atheists, that their favourite book is the God Delusion (they'll open the Books section so everyone can see and admire), and that all of us are ignorant, backward and stupid. They also organize in wolfpacks in order to make their attacks effective. Basically, what can you do when you're outnumbered 10:1, and when all your opponents shout "You're stupid!" I engaged in a "discussion" (if you can call it so) with a few of them, and to be honest, I never got the answers to my objections.

My only concern is that Christians whose faith is not firm may become deceived by such. That's why we should set an example that it's possible to be an intellectual and a believer. I showed some of these materials to a few of my friends, and they were impressed. I even noticed some relief in their expressions.


P.S. Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

Yeah, that's my biggest concern as well. Just the sheer number of them on places like youtube has to get the more inexperienced Christians feeling down (honestly it makes me feel down as well). Youtube and Facebook, as you say, don't allow for much discussion. Its funny and sad to see people say things like "Craig is stupid" or "Craig's arguments and fallacies have been refuted again and again" until you see someone back them into a corner until they change the subject or just repeat themselves ad nauseum, and it becomes plain that they DON'T have much in their favor.

If Craig was so easy to refute, he wouldn't win every debate. Its that simple. You see other atheists try to explain it away as "He's just good at debating" or "Its just his persona" or whatever. Even on the video you linked, mostly negative ratings (honestly lots of trolling imo, if you look at Christian music videos or things without some sort of apologetics involved, the atheists stay away from those places) and people who seemed to be under the impression that Craig was making some sort of positive argument rather than Hitchens simply making a fool of himself? Its amazing how completely these people lack any understanding of debates, how important what a person actually says is, philosophy, etc.

For myself, its probably wrong of me but whenever someone starts quoting The God Delusion or one of the popular atheist books I just shake my head and decide its not worth the time. The God Delusion has been refuted more times, sometimes chapter by chapter and passage by passage, then just about any other book I can think of. If atheists buy that, they either are ignorant or hypocritical.

Reactionary wrote:

narnia4 wrote:I think its funny how completely full of it so many atheists are. I read comments that are incredibly arrogant and condescending, and yet I'm so used to it by now that I look past the ridicule to see what they're actually saying... so often what they are actually saying is NOTHING.

Indeed so. There is very little hidden behind the "smokescreens" they create. Of course, since they are at least subconsciously aware of that fact, you will rarely find them on a forum like this one. Many have tried to discredit this forum, but I don't really see many, if any, atheists coming here and debating us.

The thing is, a forum like this one enables you to quote the person you're debating, and organize a well thought out response. Most Internet atheists are afraid of an honest debate, so instead, you'll find them lurking on message boards (with a character limit, they especially like those!), or on Facebook, where they'll comment on every topic that has any connection to Christianity whatsoever, anxious to point out that they're so smart to be atheists, that their favourite book is the God Delusion (they'll open the Books section so everyone can see and admire), and that all of us are ignorant, backward and stupid. They also organize in wolfpacks in order to make their attacks effective. Basically, what can you do when you're outnumbered 10:1, and when all your opponents shout "You're stupid!" I engaged in a "discussion" (if you can call it so) with a few of them, and to be honest, I never got the answers to my objections.

My only concern is that Christians whose faith is not firm may become deceived by such. That's why we should set an example that it's possible to be an intellectual and a believer. I showed some of these materials to a few of my friends, and they were impressed. I even noticed some relief in their expressions.


P.S. Have you seen this video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHIIjfxr4o0

This reminds me of a particularly annoying atheist named Fiftyflamingbottles on the deep recesses of YouTube. When I kindly invited him to come to this forum, he responded with these comments:

Regarding the subject of 7% of wars in history being about religion:

Percentages are misleading, wars don't die, people do.
Christians are fond of attributing wars to atheists. Many times due only to the lack of religious beliefs of the rulers of those societies themselves. And, more often then not, the wars have absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.
Doesn't seem fair, but O.K.
In that case:
Around 86% of the worlds population has been, and is now, religious. Using the criteria established, 86% of all murders have been committed by religious people.

I did not add the "enters". He did them all himself for some stupid reason, probably some sad attempt to provide paragraphs. Now, when I asked him to come over here because I wanted to take him on, he responded with this:

I'll debate any theist that can engage in logic and rationality, if one can't, he'll get his logical fallacies thrown back in his face. The extreme limitations of space here presents me with a challenge a theist can't supply. I'm forced to convey a thought in as a concise manner as possible. As an added benefit, it discourages christian rhetoric, blustering [nonsense], and useless bible quotations. There's just not enough room. If you can't manage under the constraints, that's Ok, don't.

I later told him that I need space to do things like post URLS and supply statistics (you know, like what people do to support things?) and he responded with this:

The beauty of a good concept is it's clarity. It stands or falls on it's own merits. If one needs to yammer on about it for 2000 words in an attempt to convince someone of it's validity, it probably has none. If you choose to waste limited space with filler instead of content, there is no reason to suspect things will improve given more space. See? All the info needed to express what is required, and all under 450 characters. So, that's that. Your call.

Yeah, so I can say "atheists need to be shot, God exists, and you are a child molester." It's perfect clarity, but it's too bad I can't support any facts.

I want to debate him so bad. When I look at those comments, I know that I can post a URL from some website like this one, Creation, The Christian Research Institute, Reasons To Believe, or another one that could disprove about five. Oh, and he also denies that Christians were the first abolitionists. But I know to stay away. It's his area and his den of stupidity. It's like fighting a chihuahua that thinks it's a bear in a cave. You don't have room to do anything and he just attacks repeatedly thinking he's going to do something. I bet he thinks he actually wins debates because he left, even though it's because I just don't care about him anymore. Oh, and he's one of the only atheists in the Comment Section, but he's responsible for about 60% of all the comments.

Dudeacus97, that guy has some pretty flawed reasoning.

Percentages are misleading, wars don't die, people do.
Christians are fond of attributing wars to atheists. Many times due only to the lack of religious beliefs of the rulers of those societies themselves. And, more often then not, the wars have absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.
Doesn't seem fair, but O.K.
In that case:
Around 86% of the worlds population has been, and is now, religious. Using the criteria established, 86% of all murders have been committed by religious people.

This one is a rather easy response, friend.

False analogy, 1 term fallacy with an implicit, illicit process
~50% of the world's population is female. Using the criteria established, ~50% of deep sea exploration have been discovered by women.
Which gets me to this point. What does deep sea exploration discoveries have to do with females? Nothing!

You know whats even more flawed? How does that counter the initial point made? Regarding Religion and War? Its irrelevant, an informal fallacy.

The beauty of a good concept is it's clarity. It stands or falls on it's own merits. If one needs to yammer on about it for 2000 words in an attempt to convince someone of it's validity, it probably has none. If you choose to waste limited space with filler instead of content, there is no reason to suspect things will improve given more space. See? All the info needed to express what is required, and all under 450 characters. So, that's that. Your call.

Ah, so this is a case where 450 characters is the maximum for something to be valid? In that case, pretty much any and all serious scientific documentation is invalid? This must be a joke.
It appears that he has a serious problem with being able to do rational debate. Its him and his cowardly 450 characters limit. He can call it "clarity" all he wants. It's anti-intellectual.

domokunrox wrote:Dudeacus97, that guy has some pretty flawed reasoning.

Percentages are misleading, wars don't die, people do.
Christians are fond of attributing wars to atheists. Many times due only to the lack of religious beliefs of the rulers of those societies themselves. And, more often then not, the wars have absolutely nothing to do with religious belief.
Doesn't seem fair, but O.K.
In that case:
Around 86% of the worlds population has been, and is now, religious. Using the criteria established, 86% of all murders have been committed by religious people.

This one is a rather easy response, friend.

False analogy, 1 term fallacy with an implicit, illicit process
~50% of the world's population is female. Using the criteria established, ~50% of deep sea exploration have been discovered by women.
Which gets me to this point. What does deep sea exploration discoveries have to do with females? Nothing!

You know whats even more flawed? How does that counter the initial point made? Regarding Religion and War? Its irrelevant, an informal fallacy.

The beauty of a good concept is it's clarity. It stands or falls on it's own merits. If one needs to yammer on about it for 2000 words in an attempt to convince someone of it's validity, it probably has none. If you choose to waste limited space with filler instead of content, there is no reason to suspect things will improve given more space. See? All the info needed to express what is required, and all under 450 characters. So, that's that. Your call.

Ah, so this is a case where 450 characters is the maximum for something to be valid? In that case, pretty much any and all serious scientific documentation is invalid? This must be a joke.
It appears that he has a serious problem with being able to do rational debate. Its him and his cowardly 450 characters limit. He can call it "clarity" all he wants. It's anti-intellectual.

I stopped debating him not because I couldn't counter his points but because of the fact that they're so stupid. If I took every single stupid atheistic argument in history and compiled it into one person, then it would be him. Those two posts were the stupidest atheistic arguments I've ever seen since somebody decided to cite Doctor Who as a source of scientific information as to what exists outside the universe.

Maybe I'll continue with him, though, but for another reason. I might want to make another script or short story making fun of atheists, and if he says enough stupid stuff, I can say that the content is 100% authentic.