William Lane Craig Destroys Christopher Hitchens

[Jared Jammer]

Watch Dr. William Lane Craig rips atheist hero Hitchens' beliefs to shreds, exposing them as being shallow, contradictory, and illogical. Hitchens' atheistic faith was bankrupt, and Dr. Craig makes these as plain as day. It's no wonder Richard Dawkins was too terrified to debate Craig; he knew he'd be intellectually demolished just like Hitchens and Sam Harris.

[youtube]AHIIjfxr4o0[/youtube]

 

[Storm]

Watch Dr. William Lane Craig rips atheist hero Hitchens' beliefs to shreds, exposing them as being shallow, contradictory, and illogical. Hitchens' atheistic faith was bankrupt, and Dr. Craig makes these as plain as day. It's no wonder Richard Dawkins was too terrified to debate Craig; he knew he'd be intellectually demolished just like Hitchens and Sam Harris.

I'm sorry, I couldn't deal with the captions long enough to get to the "shredding." Do you, by chance, have a less juvenile video?

 

[YmirGF]

Do you, by chance, have a less juvenile video?

Agreed. I didn't make it past 2:49 :run:

 

[LuisDantas]

Gosh, this video is quite immature, yes.

 

[Jared Jammer]

Would anyone care to discuss Hitchens' stuttering nonsense, or are we all happy to continue distracting from it by feigning outrage over some made-up immaturity?

 

[Storm]

Would anyone care to discuss Hitchens' stuttering nonsense, or are we all happy to continue distracting from it by feigning outrage over some made-up immaturity?

I'm not outraged, and the immaturity is hardly imagined. Reread my first post: I asked if you had something without the puerile captioning.

 

[Jared Jammer]

I'm not outraged, and the immaturity is hardly imagined. Reread my first post: I asked if you had something without the puerile captioning.

Fast forward through the captioning if you find it that unbearable, although it does an excellent job in explaining just what an illogical moron Christopher Hitchens is, or should I say, was.

 

[Storm]

Fast forward through the captioning if you find it that unbearable, although it does an excellent job in explaining just what an illogical moron Christopher Hitchens is, or should I say, was.

I watched about 3 minutes, all heavily captioned. Exactly how much do I have to skip?

I don't think you've got any grounds to be calling Hitchens an "illogical moron," though. Personally, I try to be gracious enough not to speak ill of the dead in general.

 

[Drolefille]

Would anyone care to discuss Hitchens' stuttering nonsense, or are we all happy to continue distracting from it by feigning outrage over some made-up immaturity?

If no one can bear to watch your video, how will anyone discuss your post. Your message could be fantastic, but your medium apparently sucks.

Also let's discuss word usage: It isn't outrage it's disgust or distaste, there is no rage evidenced. It is only feigned in your opinion, apparently because you disagree with it, and agree with the captioning in question and the immaturity is again only "made-up" because you disagree with it.

Please try again with more precise language and a better medium for your message.

 

[outhouse]

here Richard Carrier gets him so confused craig doesnt know how to answer.


[youtube]WMxTghJQxEc[/youtube]
Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig on Faith Under Fire - YouTube

 

[Sunstone]

It's no wonder Richard Dawkins was too terrified to debate Craig; he knew he'd be intellectually demolished just like Hitchens and Sam Harris.

Contrary to your stated reason for why Richard Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, Dawkins has stated that he will not debate Craig because he does not wish to validate Craig. That is, to lend him legitimacy. Dawkins has every right to take that position since no one is under any obligation to debate everyone who wants to debate them. To say that Dawins is "terrified" of Craig is to speculate, and perhaps to speculate in bad faith.

 

[Dingbat]

I am not even a fan of Hitchens or his discussions on theology but I found the video unbearable as well. Overall it just showed two grown men arguing semantics like it means a damn thing to anyone not already on a side of the debate. Then again my views are grounded enough that two people arguing isn't going to have much of an effect. Just like how I imagine most Atheists are not remotely impressed by any kind of theist "winning" a debate. At the end of the day I am sure most people form their own opinions, hopefully, and spend as little time listening to talking heads as possible. Just my $.02.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Unfortunately the captions render the video unwatchable.

When it comes to debating, William Lane Craig is a master. No question. He's very good at speaking with authority on matters such as physics, even though hardly any physicists would take him seriously. What he's really doing when he throws things like physics around is begging the question, but he does it with a confidence that is superficially impressive and convincing to many people.

 

[Dingbat]

Unfortunately the captions render the video unwatchable.

When it comes to debating, William Lane Craig is a master. No question. He's very good at speaking with authority on matters such as physics, even though hardly any physicists would take him seriously. What he's really doing when he throws things like physics around is begging the question, but he does it with a confidence that is superficially impressive and convincing to many people.

Isn't his doctorate in Philosophy? Why would he discuss physics? What an odd man. Then again most people with philosophy doctorates are.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Isn't his doctorate in Philosophy? Why would he discuss physics? What an odd man. Then again most people with philosophy doctorates are.

I don't know what degrees he has, but my problem is not that he lacks a degree in physics. By all means, everyone should feel welcome to discuss physics. Unlike religion, there is no priesthood or special revelation or leaps of faith necessary to join in the fun of physics. But if you are a non-expert and you are going to say something about physics that the overwhelming majority of physicists dismiss as baseless, you should at least be up front about it. A good scientist, when they are about to say something others view as outlandish or controversial, preface their arguments with something like "Now what I'm about to say is my own opinion, and I should warn you that it's not accepted by most experts in the field ..."

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I got to 4:35 before giving up, does that make me the winner or the loser?

There is no doubt that WLC is charismatic and well spoken and superficially his arguments make sense.

However it's the same old tripe trotted out by theists on this forum. Nothing new, nothing that hasn't been rebutted a thousand times.

 

[F0uad]

*Post Removed*

Well not all hes arguments were that bad and he isn't a drug adict.

 

[Storm]

Well not all hes arguments were that bad and he isn't a drug adict.

That's not what crackpot means. It's more along the lines of nutjob.

 

[F0uad]

That's not what crackpot means. It's more along the lines of nutjob.

Ah my bad well he acted professionaly in the debate and Hitchens didn't so i would call Hitchens the ''Crackpot'' here.

 

[Father Heathen]

Watch Dr. William Lane Craig rips atheist hero Hitchens' beliefs to shreds, exposing them as being shallow, contradictory, and illogical. Hitchens' atheistic faith was bankrupt, and Dr. Craig makes these as plain as day. It's no wonder Richard Dawkins was too terrified to debate Craig; he knew he'd be intellectually demolished just like Hitchens and Sam Harris.

[youtube]AHIIjfxr4o0[/youtube]

Didn't you post a thread about this exact same video months ago?