A blog where I discuss intelligent issues and discuss rationality, logic, evidence and my non belief in sky daddies.
Mike.This is proof that you completely disregard EVERYTHING that is said to you. Why won't you answer objections or change your beliefs because of objections? You are not a free thinker. You are a fundy atheist with a narrow mind.I'm sorry Mike, but most people AT THE ACTUAL DEBATE agree that Craig won. For one thing, Cooke never actually argued that God was a delusion- therefore, his presence was pointless. Craig may as well have just given a monolouge. He only offered tired canards that were easily refuted by Craig.And I think that Dr. Jack Baur on TWeb answered your objections in this post which I will quote now:" Originally posted by MikeWright Well thats not what the reviews im reading are saying. Firstly - LOL - "Debunking Christianity"? Oh yeah, a great source for reviews.Secondly, can you even read? Those reviews DO say that Cooke lost the debate. Reviewer Ty for example said that while HE thinks God is a delusion, Cooke failed to argue for that conclusion.Likewise, reviewer Damien said "I'd say Cooke shouldn't have shown up for a debate if he just wanted to give an opening statement and be done with it. Not that his statements weren't good ones, but I think Craig took him to school and made him look like he had no substance to his argument because he wouldn't stand up for it or knock Craig's down."In fact, at the link you provided, a quick browse revealed that NOBODY there thoyught that Cooke got the better of the debate. Why did you even post that link?So not only did you fail to even hear the debate (you thought Craig had nothing to say about the "99.9% atheist" argument), but you completely failed to read the reviews that you linked me to!Do you listen to or read ANYTHING that you appeal to?"You offered a weak response which I'll mention now:"Ok then, what about John Loftus: "Poor Craig, debating an opponent who dismisses all of his arguments because of the problem of religious diversity, who merely pointed out the way Craig's theistic conception of God originated from a polytheistic tribal god in the earlier portions of the OT. Poor Craig, trying to claim he's not specifically defending the Christian conception of God, but who turns around and uses the resurrection of Jesus as evidence that God exists. Poor Craig, claiming the word "atheist" does not apply to what he thinks of the other gods and goddesses, as if that answers Cooke's "page 341" objection. Craig can claim victory in debates such as these, as he and his followers will do, but Cooke is right on. Craig is defending a lost cause." Or Evan: "John you're absolutely right" So to say that nobody though Cooke wiped the floor with william lane craig is a complete lie. No. debunking christianity is run by people who were xians themselves once and so if they changed their mind in the past then they must be open to chaning their minds in the future."Mike, how naive are you? Most Christians would saythat craig won the debate. If we left it at there, then perhaps you could legitmatly claim that its Christian bias. HOWEVER most atheists, especially those actually there wathcing the debate, agree that Craig won. Therefore, we can see that any idea otherwise, especially the ridiculous objections from John Loftus, who is incredicly dishonest, and his fanboy then perhaps its a result of ATHIEST bias?Nevertheless, I encourage everyone to watch the debate and judge for yourselves who won. I think you'll find that once again, Mike is talking crap.God bless ya.
If memory serves, Craig has a Doctorate in both Philosophy and Theology.What an idiot!! Craig would have a hard time being qualified to fold napkins at McDonalds. Only 2 Doctorates and he has the balls to show his face in public.for those of you less inclined, that was sarcasm
John Loftus said that craigs supporters would lie and claim victory.
And what makes you so certain that Loftus would tell the truth?
John loftus predicted that you would say what you are saying and so his prediction has obviously come true
John Loftus has already shown he's a liar, why should you trust him? I do love how Johnny boy can't take criticism, admit his errors, or properly quote people. Oh well... who needs honesty when we have John Loftus, the used car salesmen? Want to see how easy it is to play his game?"I knew John Loftus would lie for cooke, after all, he is his supporter."See how easy that game is to play? Now do you two have real arguments?
MIKE said:John loftus predicted that you would say what you are saying and so his prediction has obviously come true27 June 2008 09:01Hey Mike?.... do you suppose that Loftus could have predicted because he's seen a few of the responses in the past?Like i said before, Mike, most of these arguments have been going back and forth for a couple thousand years.Even the newer ones are not fresh off the boat.johnny
Post a Comment