William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
OP - December 08, 2011, 01:49 PM

Has anyone watched this?

William Craig Lane pounded Hitchens.

Hitchens didn't even remotely try to refute WLC's Cosmological Argument, he never commented anything about Objective Morality and so on.

I like the point where WLC said that Evolution was so unlikely that you would certainly think there is a God because Evolution was more than 10 times unlikely to happen than to happen.

WLC also made some other Valid Claims.

I wonder if someone here has watched this debate and what are your thoughts on it and why did Hitchen suck so bad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #1 - December 08, 2011, 02:00 PM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on December 08, 2011, 01:49 PM
I like the point where WLC said that Evolution was so unlikely that you would certainly think there is a God because Evolution was more than 10 times unlikely to happen than to happen.

And yet... it happened.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #2 - December 08, 2011, 02:22 PM

@ Ishina: True.

Anyways this WLC guy has been debating Atheists and many other people for 20 Years and he has never changed his tactics and Strategy, how come whenever he debates an Atheist or Skepticist he owns them, I mean if he is full of Logical Fallacies as many claim then why has no one owned him???
- neale
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #3 - December 08, 2011, 02:30 PM

There's no doubt that Hitchens wasn't on form for this debate which is a shame because on a good day Hitch could easily deal with Craigs nonsense. When I watched it I kept saying "why's he letting him get away with this?".

Craigs use of Kalaam relies on an assumption for the first premise so basically it's an argument from ignorance so it fails. So does his argument against abiogenisis (not evolution I think). What all these appeals to the improbability of abiogenesis fail to take into account, when they use statistics, is time and space, the problem is characterised as the unlikelihood of a small group of non replicating molecules coalescing to form a single replicating chain of molecules, granted this seems completely improbable. The important factor that is always left out is that we must be aware that this process could have happened anywhere and at any time that the correct conditions were present, this is a huge window. One chance in a billion suddenly becomes entirely probable when you feed in the fact that there are trillions upon trillions of opportunities available at any moment over a huge period of geological time, anywhere on the surface of the planet where the right conditions applied. Craigs statistical argument against abiogenesis fails here.

If you want to see Craig get his hat and coat handed to him watch his debate with Sam Harris.

"Happy happy, joy joy!" Stimpson J Cat.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #4 - December 08, 2011, 02:35 PM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on December 08, 2011, 02:22 PM
@ Ishina: True.

Anyways this WLC guy has been debating Atheists and many other people for 20 Years and he has never changed his tactics and Strategy, how come whenever he debates an Atheist or Skepticist he owns them, I mean if he is full of Logical Fallacies as many claim then why has no one owned him???

Shelly Kagan owned him, imo.

Assuming that him whining and crying foul like a pussy-whipped bitch afterwards is an indicator of being 'owned'.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #5 - December 08, 2011, 02:37 PM

To win a debate a theist would have to give some PROOF that god exists, but purely because there isn't the slightest bit of conclusive proof that god exists a theist can NEVER win an argument/debate with a non-theist, it's like me trying to win a debate on the existence of fairies, it ain't gonna happen simply becos there no such thing as fairies !

Theists can only give reasons as to why he might exist but NO imperical evidence. I could come up with 100 reasons why there's an invisible, incorporeal baby purple dragon in my cellar, however all the polished gloss oratory i use in giving reasons why i believe that will not make it a FACT. More so if somebody refutes 98 of my reasons but misses out 2 that would PROVE my belief. Not responding to 2 of my reasons does not equate to their being evidence of my claim.

The thing is in live debates is that there are time constraints. You simply don't have time to explain hows all the arguments for belief in god are feeble and absurd, which they are. Now when WLC gives 5 arguments for believing in god and you only get 15 minutes to respond to that, it's simply impossible to respond to all 5 arguments plus put forward your own arguments in the time your allocated for a rebuttal. All of WLC arguments are pretty easily dismantled however to concisely explain that would require at least 10-30 minutes for each of WLC arguments.
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #6 - December 08, 2011, 03:04 PM

@ Neale:

I haven't watched the one with Sam Harris, I will make sure I watch it.

I don't know the debate with Hitchens was long and needed a lot of concentration, I can't remember all the points WLC made but he surely made good ones and Hitchens seemed to be all over the place.

Quote from: Ishina on December 08, 2011, 02:35 PM
Shelly Kagan owned him, imo.

Assuming that him whining and crying foul like a pussy-whipped bitch afterwards is an indicator of being 'owned'.

I think it is safe to assume that.

Anyways I opened this thread cuz many times I would run onto Religious people saying that the guy who atheists swear by got owned terribly, I thought they were full of shit until I watched the debate and saw how reallt Hitchens didn't do well, I am not saying he sucked 100%, he brought up also some good points but definitely in the end WLC got him.

@ serpentofeden

yeah but don't u think he has a point in there.

Most of the facts point u to the God's existence, I watched some of his Arguments, the Cosmological Argument, Teleological Argument and some other stuff which I think are very well elaborated by WLC.

Since I am relatively new to all this debates for and against the Existance of god and so on and on I can't quite be that good at detecting when someone makes a logical fallacy or so on and on.

In the Other hand doesn't The Big Bang theory some kind of Assumption that Matter and Energy existed before the current state of the universe differently or the universe Existed but it was not as it is now.

I am downloading the Sam Harris Debate now
- truth_seeker
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #7 - December 08, 2011, 03:21 PM

Yeah, hitchens sucked ass on that debate. WLC basically steamrolled him all the way.

I think a factor of his defeat was because he attacked the wrong points and ignored william's points. But I think the major reason that he lost was simply because William Lane Craig was a much better orator than him.
- neale
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #8 - December 08, 2011, 03:51 PM

truth_seeker, you mean that WLC was the better orator on the night right? Not in general right?

Here's a good dismantling of Craigs arguments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4u6Mz21jTaA&context=C2e908ADOEgsToPDskI0ey_7Q3wrv8KowvEU0EP0

"Happy happy, joy joy!" Stimpson J Cat.
- Stuff
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #9 - December 08, 2011, 04:09 PM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on December 08, 2011, 03:04 PM
@ Neale:

I haven't watched the one with Sam Harris, I will make sure I watch it.

I don't think Harris did all that great either.

Craig is an excellent debater, albeit sneaky and disingenuous as he constantly twists or emits information. His pet arguments (Kalam, teleological, and morality argument) have all been dealt with elsewhere in the media.

Have you heard the good news? There is no God!
- crazyislam
- Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro.
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #10 - December 08, 2011, 05:01 PM

Harris did well, though Craig is undoubtedly the better debater of them all (and the only thing he's good at), he won't hesitate to use his high school debate tactics though his arguments are downright rubbish.

Youtube
- crazyislam
- Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro.
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #11 - December 08, 2011, 05:08 PM

Craig vs Bradley is pretty good where Craig gets bitchslapped by Bradley on Hell and benovelence of god:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigBradleyHellDebate.mp3

Transcript:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley0.html

And Parsons vs Craig is good too:
http://www.bringyou.to/CraigParsonsDebate.mp3

Youtube
- Al-Ma`arri
- I Worship Nietzsches Moustache
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #12 - December 08, 2011, 05:12 PM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on December 08, 2011, 02:22 PM
@ Ishina: True.

Anyways this WLC guy has been debating Atheists and many other people for 20 Years and he has never changed his tactics and Strategy, how come whenever he debates an Atheist or Skepticist he owns them, I mean if he is full of Logical Fallacies as many claim then why has no one owned him???

Because he is a liar and an impostor? Truth is not in WLC vocabulary. WLC got a ph.d in intellectual dishonesty.

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

- John Keats
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #13 - December 08, 2011, 06:15 PM

@ Jonathan Davis:

Well that is what I am saying, since he is such a liar I think smart people like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins should come forth and expose his bullshit, all his logical fallacies and put the bitch in his place.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #14 - December 08, 2011, 06:37 PM

It is evident to me that Craig also doesn't answer or refute the arguments against his position. He always argues against a generic atheist position regardless of what his opponent argues. In fact, I could write his notes for him, since they are so predictable.

The value of these debates, for me at least, isn't who wins. Because nobody can win. The format isn't set up to be able to refute each others point. Craig knows this all too well and crams as many points as he can in a single round so that it's impossible to refute them in any depth in the time allotted, and so him (and the casual observer) concludes that his opponent can't refute them because they are unwilling or unable to, not because they simply don't have the time.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- crazyislam
- Rubber Dinghy Rapids, bro.
- Member
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #15 - December 09, 2011, 06:38 AM

Quote from: sturmgewehr on December 08, 2011, 06:15 PM
@ Jonathan Davis:

Well that is what I am saying, since he is such a liar I think smart people like Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins should come forth and expose his bullshit, all his logical fallacies and put the bitch in his place.

You can get away with such BS in formal debates easily, if you're a good and cunning debater. And Dawkins is not much of a debater either imo. Even if Craig is to defend the proposition of earth being flat, he might do a better job at making his arguments sound good than Vic Stenger - which is precisely this so called "debates" are pointless.

Youtube
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #16 - December 09, 2011, 03:42 PM

arif ahmed also owned him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-NF-LlVFHM

mp3 is here
http://www.christianheritageuk.org.uk/Media/AllMedia.aspx?speaker=Arif%20Ahmed,%20William%20Lane%20Craig
- sturmgewehr
- Illyro-Thracian
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #17 - December 09, 2011, 05:20 PM

^^

I will watch that later.
- deusvult
- O......O
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #18 - December 09, 2011, 05:39 PM

The WLC debates aren't really that informative in a get to the truth sense. Before the debate Craig demands that the questions are framed in a very particular way that imo let him off the hook a little, he asks for very specific time formats so that's he speeches can cram as many points as he can. When he is on record as saying "to dominate a debate, you have dominate the clock" it seems that his debate are just arrogant acts of showmanship. The " my opponent didn't answer points 7, 9, 15 so he concedes them" is a sure sign of debating in bad faith.

So once again I'm left with the classic Irish man's dilemma, do I eat the potato or do I let it ferment so I can drink it later?
My political philosophy below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGat4i8pJI&feature=g-vrec
Just kidding, here are some true heros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBTgvK6LQqA
- serpentofeden
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens
Reply #19 - December 19, 2011, 07:07 PM

wlc gets pounded in the q&a's
1« Previous thread | Next thread »