So here is almost 5 minutes of William Lane Craig talking about Richard Dawkins. What you see is Craig’s misleading dishonesty and is no different than it always is.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d-OjSKr79aQ

For the full clip to watch:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=j4DpKH0Wt6Y

I will entirely destroy the entire above 55 min clip at a later date.

[1] He brings this up on his view screen for the audience to see:

“1. If God does not exist then objective moral objective laws do not exist

2. Objective moral laws do exist.

3. Therefore God exists.”

So a quick discussion on this.

“1. If God does not exist then objective moral objective laws do not exist”

a) No evidence of this whatsoever. None, zero, absolutely nothing whatsoever.

b) Craig as usual is saying something that is opinion only and his brainwashed followers are simply hearing what they want to hear and nothing else.

– As explained before:

“The Golden Rule”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

> the fact that animals do show signs of morals and animals are evolved species that according to your religion do not have souls.

“2. Objective moral values do exist.”

a) Of course they do, but they were socially evolved and accepted through rational human thinking.

b) Not because of God, but because they evolved in society and the “golden rule”.

c) Not because William Lane Craig gave his OPINION and told people exactly what they wanted to hear without him actually saying anything that was FACTUAL.

“3. Therefore God exists.”

a) This is a meaningless and completely logicless answer and makes no sense whatsoever.

b) This is the exact equivalent to saying “evil and all psychopathic behavior exists, so therefore the devil exists” it is pure illogical nonsense based on nothing.

c) Again all Craig is saying is his complete non-sensical opinion and passing it off as FACT and somehow people think of Craig as some super wise person, when all he is doing is saying NOTHING but telling people what they don’t want to hear.

Very similar to this man who everyone thought was very wise here in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Randal_Smith

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/12/07/f-charles-smith-goudge-inquiry.html

Turns out he really knew nothing but because of people’s blind faith and blind stupidity in trusting his opinion he was responsible for destroying many peoples lives.

Okay so continuing on with what Craig says in the video:

[2] Craig says the above 3 points are logically “iron clad”.

a) No they aren’t and not even a little.

b) Strictly delusional and misleading opinion, which people are somehow accepting as fact, when there is nothing factual about what he says at all.

[3] Craig says “people generally believe both it’s premises” (regarding why the 3 points are so iron clad).

a) A “premises” is the assumption that something is true, but since there is nothing factual about anything Craig says and only OPINION, then even if they did believe Craig’s 3 points, there is nothing to say that the premises are true.

b) People do NOT generally believe Craig’s premises because:

c) Anyone who is not brainwashed and not hearing only what they want to, will not believe this because they will know it really is saying nothing.

d) Some religious people will be able to see that Craig really is saying nothing but opinion only and nothing factual.

[4] Craig then says “Dawkins himself appears to be committed to both of it’s premises”

> Who does Craig think he is he kidding, besides gullible people who take everything he says as opinion with which he tries to pass off as fact?

[5] Craig quotes Richard Dawkins in one of Dawkins books saying:

“There is at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living objects soul reason for being.”

a) So what exactly does Dawkins say that isn’t true that Craig is saying that he is?

b) There IS no design, there is only evolutionary progress.

c) The universe can and has created itself and just ask people quite significantly smarter than Craig.

Sean M. Carroll

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2012/09/25/let-the-universe-be-the-universe/#.Umo41GS9Kc1

http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/

And Stephen Hawking:

http://m.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311168/Stephen-Hawking-says-The-Big-Bang-didnt-need-God-set-off.html

d) There is no “purpose” in the sense of “created by a designer for a purpose”.

e) God would not need people for anything. It’s “God” and according to Craig God is all powerful and eternal right?

So:

f) If something is all powerful and eternal, then why need anything and what purpose would it have for creating anything with a purpose?

g) Why would it care? It wouldn’t.

h) Why not just think about something and it instantly happens? That’s what usually happens if something is ALL POWERFUL.

i) ”Nothing but pitiless indifference” simply means that there is no outside forces like ‘gods’ playing any part in our lives and only WE are in control of it whether we want to accept it, or not!

j) ”Pitiless indifference” is just saying it like it is “whether you want to accept it, or not, that is how it is:

(1) There is no unseen god judging you.

(2) No magical force praising you.

(3) No guiding hand helping you get through life.

(4) What you do selfishly, or unselfishly, or anything that has been labelled “good”, or “evil” by society is not being observed by anything and has no impact on your life in any respect.

k) We ARE “machines for propagating DNA”.

– How are we not?

l) We are just like any animal, we instinctually breed, just like any animal and we are machines that evolve and think and are made of organic compounds just like any animal.

m) Every living thing does contain that instinct to REPRODUCE!

n) When Dawkins says “no evil, no good” he’s simply speaking the bottom line truth, everything is instinctual and socially evolved.

o) Dawkins IS not suggesting in anyway that we don’t have a feeling of what is evil and what is good, but that it is something that has been socially evolved.

Examples I am giving you:

A gay man is hung to death in Iran for being gay.

> Many people think it is NOT evil to hang the man whether they believe he has a choice to be gay, or not, because they believe god hates gays and gays should be killed.

> The gay man who has been hung to death and could not help how he was born would think 1 of these 2 things.

{1} “These people are evil for doing this to me because I cannot help how I am born.”

{2} I’m glad I’m being put to death because I am gay and am obviously an evil person even though I do good things and am kind to everyone and simply wanted to be happy, but since God created me gay then I am a bad person so I am glad I’m getting hung to death.

{3} Most likely he would be thinking “{1}” and if he was thinking “{2}” that would be unusual, but not impossible due to brainwashing.

p) So what Craig has done is twisted Dawkins words and said it to misleadingly sound like Dawkins is saying:

(1) People shouldn’t have morals.

(2) Who cares how people treat each other, or do what we perceive to be good, or evil?

(3) It doesn’t matter if people do good, or bad things.

(4) We should all be psychopaths just because.

(5) We shouldn’t try to be the best we can be and make the world a better place.

q) The above mentioned is exactly how Craig wants people to perceive Dawkins.

r) Dawkins is simply stating that good and evil are evolved states of human society.

s) Dawkins never says he doesn’t perceive things as good, or evil and hold strong to his own values.

t) What Dawkins does constantly address is that religion interferes with peoples perception and thinking as to what is TRULY acceptable and rationally and sanely moral.

u) Dawkins speaks of how people can be forced and deceived to think in an irrational and forced manner to hate and harm and not perceive things rationally for themselves. Otherwise known as “brainwashing”.

[6] Craig then attempts to smear Dawkins as a hypocrite after smearing him as someone who tells people to be a psychopath, by listing several of Dawkins moral issues he has with certain things he’s brought up.

> Again, Dawkins was speaking in the quote about cold, hard factual truth, not evolved social standards of modern human thinking, or even what Dawkins himself believes to be moral, or evil.

[7] Craig states that “Dawkins contradicts himself while being commited to both the premises of the argument”

a) What premises of the argument, or for the matter, WHAT argument?

b) Certainly not Craig’s 3 argument points he listed in the beginning of his video.

c) How has Dawkins commited to any of Craig’s arguments shown again here:

“1. If God does not exist then objective moral objective laws do not exist

2. Objective moral laws do exist.

3. Therefore God exists.”

1> Moral laws are socially evolved and nothing to do with God so how is Dawkins saying any of that?

2> Dawkins said “there is no evil, nor good”, which means that Dawkins did NOT in fact say that “objective moral laws exist”

– Dawkins believes moral social standards of “good and evil” evolve over time through human interaction socially, but believes religion blinds people to have a distorted sense of “right and wrong” because they are basing “right and wrong” on something that is a non-sensical lie.

3> Last I checked Dawkins knew god didn’t exist AND thought that religion and belief in gods corrupted people’s social morals and lowered human standards because religion caused wars, desensitization and bigotry.

-So no, nothing to do with God.

[8] I really got a kick out of Craig saying “Dawkins was merely giving his OPINION of what Dawkins himself feels is objectively moral” when that is all Craig does is pass off opinions as fact.

– Was truly laughable that Craig is that much of a hypocrite but nobody even noticed.

[9] I love this statement that Craig spits out at high speed.

“The problem is the affirmation of objective moral values and duties is incompatable with his Atheism.”

a) No it isn’t and Craig is simply passing off his opinion after 2 seconds of making fun of Dawkins for saying HIS opinion of what Dawkins would think is “moral”, or not.

b) I myself am an extremely moral person and extremely Atheist and am proof that Atheists have morals.

– Why wouldn’t we?

– Because we don’t believe in both a reward and a punishment?

– That’s ridiculous and speaks very badly for religious people and ESPECIALLY Craig.

c) Meanwhile Craig really said nothing at all, but the religious people hear all they want to hear which is:

(1) Craig is right.

(2) Atheists are bad and can’t be good.

(3) Richard Dawkins is a hypocritcal idiot.

(4) Atheists can’t tell right from wrong.

d) What they really should be hearing is
“William Lane Craig is the master misleader and that Craig really isn’t saying anything honest.”

[10] Craig says that “animals are not moral agents”

a) Craig is simply spewing out opinions again.

b) Animals do show morals and here’s a few videos aswell as a video showing true genuine “love”.

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AdHjRZki9Qc

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1JiJzqXxgxo

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ysKAVyXi0J4

c) Animals do show different moral values, but they have to be observed, while human beings who are the most mentally evolved and most dominant species on the planet are for obvious reasons, far more observable.

[11] Craig then lists some arguments in
animals regarding “raping and killing that animals do in the wild”.

a) A pointless argument which ignores the fact that human beings have evolved social standards that WE as the most mentally evolved and most dominant species on Earth have accepted as our view of raping and killing.

b) Here’s a study of rats being given a choice of either getting food for themselves, or causing another rat harm. There are other examples also.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/79/Wild_Justice_by_Marc_Bekoff_and_Jessica_Pierce

c) All and all, Craig does his typical misleading and saying nothing style that sickens, angers and disgusts me while religious people everywhere are too brainwashed to see it and too unwilling to accept anything else other than “Craig is a genius and is telling me exactly what I want to hear”.

Rosa Rubicondior does a great job explaining it and I would be nuts to not attach these articles:

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/william-lane-craigs-cock-up.html?m=1

http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/fooling-lot-of-people-all-of-time.html?m=1

————————————-

[12] Finally I will add how easily religious people will only hear what they want to hear.

a) Craig knows this.

b) Craig counts on this.

c) Craig knows that it doesn’t matter what he says, it’s how he says it.

d) The difference between Atheists and religious people is that an Atheist will GLADLY listen to the evidence religious people present.

(1) The religious person will ignore any and all evidence that Atheists present, or find ways to ignore it.

(2) I know this because this blog tells me what links have been clicked in my blog articles and the links are seldom clicked.

e) All religious people are looking for is for someone like Craig to simply DISMISS things.

– That’s what they get.

– William Lane Craig is a true master of saying nothing.

Advertisements