It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Carreau
reply to post by sdb93awd
Until Dawkins starts holding his 1v1 debates in Muslim countries and challenges Clerics about Islam, he is a chicken sh*t. Picking on the safe religion and ignoring the others makes him a coward.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by sdb93awd
The excistence of god argument is just as valid as my argument that we excist on the back of a pink multidimensional elephant named Earl. And has the exact same amount of evidence to support it.
Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by sdb93awd
The excistence of god argument is just as valid as my argument that we excist on the back of a pink multidimensional elephant named Earl. And has the exact same amount of evidence to support it.
Originally posted by DeadSeraph
I see a coward in plain sight. So Dawkins picking apart young earth creationists makes him brave? Give me a break. Craig isn't a young earth creationist and his arguments hinge on logic. Where he often traps his opponents is by forcing them on the issue of atheism vs agnosticism. Most atheists are too caught up with faith in their position (and that is what it ultimately is, make no mistake about it) to admit that they don't know how the universe came into existence other than to say "the big bang did it". If they admit that they don't know what caused the big bang, then they are forced to admit that they are closet agnostics, but often refuse to do so.
Originally posted by borntowatch
another petty argument with no context or validity
Originally posted by sdb93awd
-Most atheists and academics have considerable respect for Dr. Craig
Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives.
Originally posted by sdb93awd
I'm 100% sure you've never listended to Dr. Craig debate.
Also, nobody here is talking about the age of the earth because that is irrelevant to anybody with any sense.
Originally posted by sdb93awd
Very good writeup by Craig with references to Dawkins weak arguments
Craigs arguments are based in rationality and logic. I've rarely heard him plea for anyone to "just have faith". He breaks things down very nicely and uses his superior knowledge to crush his opponents logically and fairly.
Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
The universe exists. Therefore, the universe has an explanation of its existence (from 1, 3).
Therefore, the explanation of the universe’s existence is God (from 2, 4).
William Lane Craig
www.reasonablefaith.org...
Now this is a logically airtight argument.
But unfortunately for you and them, this simply isn't the case as I have shown and this 'trap' would ensnare only the naive.
"But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: But thou shalt utterly destroy them"
You might say that such a call to genocide could never have come from a good and loving God. Any decent bishop, priest, vicar or rabbi would agree. But listen to Craig. He begins by arguing that the Canaanites were debauched and sinful and therefore deserved to be slaughtered. He then notices the plight of the Canaanite children.
"But why take the lives of innocent children? The terrible totality of the destruction was undoubtedly related to the prohibition of assimilation to pagan nations on Israel's part. In commanding complete destruction of the Canaanites, the Lord says, 'You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons, or taking their daughters for your sons, for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods' (Deut 7.3-4). […] God knew that if these Canaanite children were allowed to live, they would spell the undoing of Israel. […] Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God's grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven's incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
Do not plead that I have taken these revolting words out of context. What context could possibly justify them?
"So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgment. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli [sic] soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalising effect on these Israeli [sic] soldiers is disturbing."
Oh, the poor soldiers. Let's hope they received counselling after their traumatic experience. A later post by Craig is – if possible – even more shocking. Referring to his earlier article (above) he says:
"I have come to appreciate as a result of a closer reading of the biblical text that God's command to Israel was not primarily to exterminate the Canaanites but to drive them out of the land.[…] Canaan was being given over to Israel, whom God had now brought out of Egypt. If the Canaanite tribes, seeing the armies of Israel, had simply chosen to flee, no one would have been killed at all. There was no command to pursue and hunt down the Canaanite peoples.
It is therefore completely misleading to characterise God's command to Israel as a command to commit genocide. Rather it was first and foremost a command to drive the tribes out of the land and to occupy it. Only those who remained behind were to be utterly exterminated. No one had to die in this whole affair."
So, apparently it was the Canaanites' own fault for not running away. Right.
Would you shake hands with a man who could write stuff like that? Would you share a platform with him? I wouldn't, and I won't. Even if I were not engaged to be in London on the day in question, I would be proud to leave that chair in Oxford eloquently empty.
And if any of my colleagues find themselves browbeaten or inveigled into a debate with this deplorable apologist for genocide, my advice to them would be to stand up, read aloud Craig's words as quoted above, then walk out and leave him talking not just to an empty chair but, one would hope, to a rapidly emptying hall as well.
After reading that I wouldn't debate him either hell if I ever meet the guy I would be very tempted to punch him. He is scum.