Stephen Hawkings believes in God?

[exan]

Ok first of all here is Antony Flew en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew (my appologies as i missed his name by one letter), as far as Jesus there is lots of proof of the historicity of his resurrection and that would be the greatest miracle of all. I would suggest reading up on that first. Here is a good place to start as Doctor William lane Craig studied at both catholic and protestent universitieshttp://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5351 … If you can refute the historicity of the resurrection then be my guest and you will have accomplished something that no other historian or theologian has done yet.

Its obvious that you havent studied or looked into the concept of god much and for you to say that it is absurd shows this. The absurdity is how someone that considers thgemselves to be rational and reasoning would compare god to unicorns is absurd. there is no evidence that unicorns exist and there is pretty good evidence that god exists. In fact there is much more evidence in gods existence then there is to god not existing.

Notice that your former atheist brethren is that they used to believe that the universe was eternal. (laughing out loud big tim). The absurdity here is that many of you atheists still want to cling to the notion that the uniervse is still eternal despite what mainstream science concludes. Now tell me exan instead of using circular arguments like comparing the different gods why not just start with the basic elementary study of the concept of the existence of god. Start with the fine tuning concept at the beginning of the so called big bang (i will call it expansion for you since you might brig that up).

…]

If your post is the representation of the rational and reasoning of the atheists, it leaves too much to be desired. I suggest that you start doing your reading on the subjects that I have brought up to see what is really rational and what is truely absurd my friend
god bless

I can show you loads of christians who converted to atheism, but whats the use in that? I am not here for an arms race or to convert people.

Its weird to say “all atheists believe in an eternal universe” or "all atheist believe… " , because they don’t. For example my dad doens’t belives in an eternal universe. But you already claim you know what all atheists believe. And what my family thinks, my friends etc, every atheist on the planet. You say you have an open mind, but your words state otherwise, to you all atheists are the same. You already know what they think. Thats prejudice.

Then Dawkins for you once again is the “stereotype” atheist. I can repeat hundreds of times I do not agree with his ways, I am not like him, buts its speaking to deaf ears. You simply do not believe me on my word. You assume once again every atheist is like Dawkins. Or that he wants to throw bombs. And that since I don’t belive in god, I must be the same. Why do you throw me me on one pile with Dawkins, without reading what I write?

No I have not read Karl Marx, once again I state again I have no interest in communism. I know the basic ideas, and I find it quite absurd. I have no interest in communism, not in following it, not in its ways to get religion forbidden. I have no issues with you believing in god, but you go rant back at me, throw me on one pile with militant bomb throwing atheists, who want religion forbidden like communists, show prejucide about what I must think instead of asking or reading what I actually do. Sorry, why don’t you read what I write?

Just because I do not think god exists, to you I have to be a militant atheist who would throw bombs, wants religion erased like in communism, etc. To you atheists are like that, it does not matter what I say, because you assume you already know what I am like. I find that shocking prejudice.

Sorry, I was hoping for a serious discussion, a friendly conversation, but apparently you find my view of not believing in god so offensive that you cannot listen to the person speaking here.

 

[wallstreeterww]

There is no credible proof of the historicity of the resurrection of anyone, Jesus or otherwise

BTW Christopher Hitchens slaughtered William Lane Craig in a debate

yankee, it seems like your the only one who thinks it leaves alot to be desired since you are a militant atheist. I think we discussed the resurrection here and you chose not to respond. I presented my case , you didnt respond and now you come with the conclusion with no explanation that there isnt any historicty to the resurrection of jesus. If we were on a debating podium you would be laughed off the floor by your own atheist brethren. You are the atheist version of kirk cameron my friend. I think you need to present a case on why you think there is no historicity. I would advise you to go and do your homework on my old posts then come back with an answer a little more in depth then a one liner with nothing to back it up.

I presented the evidence from within the bible and from outside the bible and if you had an objections or points to make. As far as the karl marx statement about religion and god he said plainly that religion was the opium of the masses etc etc. I can understand why you spend so much time on this forum, your lack of research is abysmal.

Thats like you asking me why I dont like atheism, and I respond by saying " because i say so and thats all the evidence that i need to give"

I would also advice a little soul searching and therapy for your true problem which is hatred of god, because it seems like your answers are a bit emotional and lacking much substance.

As far as the craig - hitchens debate, would you like me to get some quotes from your fellow atheist brethren on their own websites talking about their opinion on who won the debate?
It also seems like you are looking at that debate from an emotional standpoint then from a coherent standpoint. Who says that atheists lack intelligence and coherency:thumbsup:

 

[wallstreeterww]

I can show you loads of christians who converted to atheism, but whats the use in that? I am not here for an arms race or to convert people.

Its weird to say “all atheists believe in an eternal universe” or "all atheist believe… " , because they don’t. For example my dad doens’t belives in an eternal universe. But you already claim you know what all atheists believe. And what my family thinks, my friends etc, every atheist on the planet. You say you have an open mind, but your words state otherwise, to you all atheists are the same. You already know what they think. Thats prejudice.

Then Dawkins for you once again is the “stereotype” atheist. I can repeat hundreds of times I do not agree with his ways, I am not like him, buts its speaking to deaf ears. You simply do not believe me on my word. You assume once again every atheist is like Dawkins. Or that he wants to throw bombs. And that since I don’t belive in god, I must be the same. Why do you throw me me on one pile with Dawkins, without reading what I write?

part 2

 

[wallstreeterww]

part 2

"No I have not read Karl Marx, once again I state again I have no interest in communism. I know the basic ideas, and I find it quite absurd. I have no interest in communism, not in following it, not in its ways to get religion forbidden. I have no issues with you believing in god, but you go rant back at me, throw me on one pile with militant bomb throwing atheists, who want religion forbidden like communists, show prejucide about what I must think instead of asking or reading what I actually do. Sorry, why don’t you read what I write? "

Just because I do not think god exists, to you I have to be a militant atheist who would throw bombs, wants religion erased like in communism, etc. To you atheists are like that, it does not matter what I say, because you assume you already know what I am like. I find that shocking prejudice.

Sorry, I was hoping for a serious discussion, a friendly conversation, but apparently you find my view of not believing in god so offensive that you cannot listen to the person speaking here.

Instead of creating an endless regression of arguments, lets start with dissecting your posts first.

"No is proof needed to convert to christianity, thats why its called a religion. As far as proof in god goes, there seems to be none. If there is some, I am happy to look into it. Direct proof, not deducted proof, I am quite convinced someone named jesus may have existed, but not that he did miracles or there was any god. I also am quite convinced someone names mozes existed too, but not alllah. What do you think about allah? Is he the same god to you as your god, or a false god? "

No proof is needed? You are applying a blanket statement again and hammering it home for all religious people. There are many that needed proof of gods existence before they made their conversion. I posted a link to the randall Niles video and if you would have actually took the time to watch it you would see that he was an atheist and he also needed proof before he made his conversion. He was a miltant atheist who made it his whole job to debunk and desipute christians. As far proof there is plenty, as i claimed allready, deductive as well as actual proof. The big bang is deductive proof through observations in math and long range telescopes that show that the universe is expanding. Like i said before for you to throw out deductive proof is absurd. As far as jesus I think I have presented my evidence on the historicity of the resurrection and if you actually took the time also to read my posts on that (which yankee doodle never responded to until now with his typical one liner denail with no evidence on the contrary) you would not be responding as you did, but you would actually be reading and researching right now to satisfy your intellectual curiousity my friend.

" Nor will a proved beginning of the universe somehow fill in a god in there for them, or make them religious and ‘endanger’ their atheism. In my country half of the population is atheist/agnost, and the majority has not the slightest idea about cyclic universes or similar theories, nor is science their reason to be not religious. "

A proved beginning makes the concept of gods existence very coherent and fully within mainstream science. We arent filling any gaps in. Before the beginning there was nothing and the concept of the christian god is the creation of the universe and everything within it from nothing. Like i said before there is much more proof of gods existence then there is against him existing. The fine tuning of the universe is the other clue which you dont seem to want to talk about, which i explained many times before. These are very compelling pieces of evidence in favor of gods existence. Also how can you say that science isnt their main reason not to be religious? What other physical factors or reasoning can there be for an atheist not to believe in god other then science. This is amazing for an atheist to say that. I understand now that your an atheist with a lower case a, but if your looking to get closer to the truth you really should do more research so that you can get a more satisfactory reason as to why you dont believe in god. The beginning of the universe flies in the face of 200 years of atheistic skepticism. You also never checked out Antony Flew. If your dad does believe that the universe had a beginning as Flew started to believe later on in his life you really should look more into the concept of deism. The beginning of the universe coupled with the non deniable intelligent design right at or before the moment of the big bang tells us that some intelligent purposefull force had its hand in all of this. By definition this force or being had to be immaterial (since there was nothing at that moment in time) and metaphysical. This is exactly our definition of god.

As far as which god is the real one that is another debate that should be left between theists, I dont understand why an atheist would concern themselves with this question since they need to first believe in theconcept of an intelligent designer. If your ready for the journey you might wanna try deism man.

You should also read the communist manisfesto as karl Marx was as atheistic as you can get. He shows us the extreme side of atheism and what is possible if they possessed the power that these world leaders had. many famous philosophers have said that without god all things are possible. Who is to tell hitler what he did was wrong? In his views he was creating the master race. This is survival of the fittest and well within the bounds of nature. Communism forbade religion because it believed that religion was the opiate of the masses.This sounds exactly the same as what most militant atheists believe and what lower case atheists secretly believe but wont say out loud.

part 3

 

[wallstreeterww]

part 3

"Scientific people like to know the truth. Wether that truth eventually would include a god or not, though to atheists that is not a likely scenario, science people keep looking. Wether thats a cyclic universe, one that started, a multi universe, alternative universes, they want answer to the “why”. A falsifiable answer. Gods are not nessecarily a problem in the truth, but as long as they are not found in the search, get measurable, quantifiable, they are not usefull for science, or make sense. As Hawking states: we should not look at what (metaphorical) god does, but at what actually happens. "

This is your post yet you dont have any urge or curiousity to understand these theories to support your view of whether god exists or not. I always believed that atheists like to know things before formullating an opinion.

As far as calling you a militant atheist, I dont recall if i did or not but if I did it (which I dont remember for sure) it would have been for this post right here.

"A biblican god is very unlikely, and something which cannot be measured, which has no falsifiable theory, it has not much to do in science. Its as likely as a pink unicorn which created the word, both myth, both not based on evidence or falsifiable logic. "

Again , this right here shows me that you are either a militant atheist or an ignorant one, and again I would suggest studying intensly the resurrection of jesus historically. At least study it well enough to satisfy your intellectual curiousity before you make a statement like the one you did before.

You see my friend, I also went through my search for truth about it all and after the search was over I was satisfied with my answers (of which alot werent just spiritual ones but scientific and philosophical ones ) that brought me back to the lord jesus and the catholic faith. For you to compare jesus to a unicorn whether its metophorically or otherwise shows me that you havent done much historical digging into the miracles like the resurrection.

before these last 2 months i have never ever done preaching to anyone in my life. I have always believed that my actions toward s my fellow beings was a better way to represent my faith, my religion and the church. As far as your statement before about atheists in america being afraid of being prosecuted you really need to live here before you make that statement.
They have much more freedom than you can imagine. They have enough freedom to post derogatory statements about jesus right next to a jesus sign during christianitys most holy day and that is christmas , and this is outside. This s]doesnt sound like a group that is afraid of being prosecuted to me. In fact all this nonsense about atheists being prosecuted is disinformation from atheists themselves. A recent study done at the university of minnesota said that atheists were the most looked down upon in America of any groups. They didnt bother to tell you that all the people that were involved behind this research including the research people themselves were all atheists. You really need to do some research before you state that atheists in america are afraid of being prosecuted .most atheists here are militant atheists who are forming groups to go on the offensive to brain wash people to convert to atheism. If you dont believe me then you should do some of your own research into this my friend.

Long and winded, my appologies to everyone on thsi forum but I had to get this post in.
god bless

 

[exan]

You claim that atheists are militant because they do not believe what you call evidence. Sorry but your deducted and tapesd together evidence is not good enough ‘evidence’ to convince an atheist. Its at most a theory, not evidence.

You act like what you hate: you are mad at what you call militant atheists, but don’t you realise here you are the one acting very militant? Jesus resurrection is not evidence but a theory. Your webpage with the theory is not convincing enough, but you don’t want to accept that. You want us to believe you and that page so hard just because you say so.

You dont have looked at the evidence of the other side, your knowlegde of science or scientific theories is small. How do I know? You don’t even know the basics about the theory of relativity, or what a theory holds versus a fact or scientific fact. You do not look at the other evidence then get mad because people who did look at yours don’t agree with its value.

Have you ever read up scientific reasoning for the fine tuning of the universe? No. You just know your version. Read Hawkings lectures, Dawkins, there are many researchers who explain it all the same way. You have never looked at it. Your very hard pushing we should look at evidence for your theory, while you have no idea about our theories. Which vary from atheist to atheist, which you also don’t believe.

Also how can you say that science isn’t their main reason not to be religious"

Because I know many. They find the idea of god nonsene. Without any science or evidene from both sides. My dad doesn’t knows anything about science, he just thinks religion is nonsense from the past. Another guy based it on history. People who are not raised with the idea there is a god often find it absurd ideas. They don’t need evidence he does not exists, they just don’t care for religion or gods.

If your dad does believe that the universe had a beginning as Flew started to believe later on in his life you really should look more into the concept of deism.

You are pushing your religion on people. Now you want to push it on my dad too. Why do you want to push your religion so hard on people?

This sounds exactly the same as what most militant atheists believe and what lower case atheists secretly believe but wont say out loud.

More prejudice and insults. Its no use talking to you because you are already convinced you know what “all atheists” are like.

No proof is needed? You are applying a blanket statement again and hammering it home for all religious people. There are many that needed proof of gods existence before they made their conversion.

I know several religious people (christians) who believe in god without knowing or having looked up the evidence for jesus ressurection. Some may need it, but not all. And for some people this kind of “evidence” won’t work either. I’m sorry you cannot handle that not everyone follows your religion.

Again , this right here shows me that you are either a militant atheist or an ignorant one, and again I would suggest studying intensly the resurrection of jesus historically. At least study it well enough to satisfy your intellectual curiousity before you make a statement like the one you did before.

You don’t even know what I looked up, you already have decided it must be something like a communistic push-atheism-on-people desire which I hide.

And please, quit calling me “friend” when you don’t act like one. You act disrespectfull, rude, push your religion on me, know nothing about the other side, show prejudice, your the militant one here. I have nothing against normal christians, but I do have problems with militant, fundamentalist ones who act rude. I am sorry, I see no use in talking with you anymore since you already are convinced you know everything, even my motives. Thats os arrogant. Please talk to someone else. I know not wanting to talk to you makes me a “militant atheist” to you, but then again, all atheists are that way to you already. Your attitude is why I do not like to talk with you anymore, not your arguments.

 

[swariffin]

Swariffan, Like I said to use science to get compelling evidence for gods existence I would use Craigs website. You can also use Doctor Craig to explain god philosophically as Craig has a phd in the philosophy of science. As craig says there is more evidence for the existence of god then for god not existing, but I really feel that when you want all evidence for gods existence then you lose something from within. Didnt Jesus say blessed are you that sees and believes but blessed more are those that dont see and still believe in me. Maybe your son should also explore his conscience mind (the soul) and he will find even more answers there. Ask your son if he believes that we are omposed of just flash, bloog, nerve endings and chemicals or are we much more then that.

Also he should do a very thorough study of the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus. There is alot of good historical evidence for jesus’s resurrection as some of my older posts have shown. paul was among the biggest prosecutors of the followers of Jesus, then he saw jesus on the road (Ibelieve it was on the road to Damascus). Paul wasnt a follower, wasnt crazy and didnt suffer from delusions and whatever it was that turned him from an unbeliever to a believer had to have been extraordinary.

Swariffan, God loves your son more then most and wants him back in his arms so bad. remember that God rejoices more when his lost sheep are found and come back to him then the sheep that are allready there. In conclusion, your son needs to hit it from a spiritual, scientific and philosophical angles.

Very encouraging, brother. Thank you.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Very encouraging, brother. Thank you.

Very welcome my friend, hope it helps.

As for ethan

"I just wrote a very long and winded response and i deleted by mistake lol, so here gopes at a short version.

You claim that atheists are militant because they do not believe what you call evidence. Sorry but your deducted and tapesd together evidence is not good enough ‘evidence’ to convince an atheist. Its at most a theory, not evidence.

You act like what you hate: you are mad at what you call militant atheists, but don’t you realise here you are the one acting very militant? Jesus resurrection is not evidence but a theory. Your webpage with the theory is not convincing enough, but you don’t want to accept that. You want us to believe you and that page so hard just because you say so."

First of all the resurrection is more then theory, and for you to call it that is not coherently based on any research. There are many scholors who studied this and have explained it away. It is documented by believers as well as non believers alike, and its very accurate as far as the time line is involved. If you want , you can look up my original response to yankee, but if you havent studied the resurrection how can you make a wild assertion that it is just a theory? Is alexander a theory? is the roman empire a theory? is the revolutionary war a theory? Lets be reasonable.

"Because I know many. They find the idea of god nonsene. Without any science or evidene from both sides. My dad doesn’t knows anything about science, he just thinks religion is nonsense from the past. Another guy based it on history. People who are not raised with the idea there is a god often find it absurd ideas. They don’t need evidence he does not exists, they just don’t care for religion or gods. "

Ok that fair,as long as they dont call their decision reasonable or rational I can live with that as I have always believed that people have a right to believe what they want as long as they dont push it on me.

“You are pushing your religion on people. Now you want to push it on my dad too. Why do you want to push your religion so hard on people?”

i simply made a suggestion. How do you define that as pushing? i said he might want to look into it, is that the same as he has to believe it or he must believe it? Sheesh. Just say thats ok and i will forget the whole thing lol.

“More prejudice and insults. Its no use talking to you because you are already convinced you know what “all atheists” are like”

Again, I think it was you that first made the statement gods with unicorns and that there is no proof of gods existence. If you dont wanna do the leg work then maybe you shouldnt make wild assumptions that you know are insulting the beliefs of others. I think it was your statement that caused my statement. Plus you are correct on one thing, I shouldnt say all atheists, but I do contend with most atheists. maybe in europe they dont push their beliefs on others (maybe , maybe not im not 100% sure as I havent done my research, fair enough?), but i do know that here in the states they are very pushy.

"I know several religious people (christians) who believe in god without knowing or having looked up the evidence for jesus ressurection. Some may need it, but not all. And for some people this kind of “evidence” won’t work either. I’m sorry you cannot handle that not everyone follows your religion. "

yes i do too, and to me they are the truely blessed of our faith because jesus revealed things to them that alot of people might not ever see. To me faith is more of a spiritual gift not a physical or mental one. I can handle perfectly well that people cant accept my religion as I have friends from every religion out there (our best friend of the family is muslim), from muslim, orthodox christian,hindu (my best friend is a hindu), and even atheist (with lower case a)., and they would never make a claim like you did about not enough evidence, as they have respect for my beliefs and I have respect for theirs, but when you make a statement like you have, expect me to respond with teh best of my ability, knowledge and passion.

You don’t even know what I looked up, you already have decided it must be something like a communistic push-atheism-on-people desire which I hide.

"And please, quit calling me “friend” when you don’t act like one. You act disrespectfull, rude, push your religion on me, know nothing about the other side, show prejudice, your the militant one here. I have nothing against normal christians, but I do have problems with militant, fundamentalist ones who act rude. I am sorry, I see no use in talking with you anymore since you already are convinced you know everything, even my motives. Thats os arrogant. Please talk to someone else. I know not wanting to talk to you makes me a “militant atheist” to you, but then again, all atheists are that way to you already. Your attitude is why I do not like to talk with you anymore, not your arguments. "

I think your confusing a response with prejudice again. I think I explained to you why I made teh statement that I made and if you feel you can make blanket statements and expect people not to respond back correcting it your equating rudeness with being a wallflower.
I do not know all your motives and I never stated that I do, but I made teh claim that most miltant atheists reponded this way with the statement you made 2 posts or so ago. If you feel that I was incorrect in my assumption feel free to correct me and i will admit that i am wrong.
Its like me making a blanket statement which was militant about atheism and expecting no response at all from people.

 

[exan]

First of all the resurrection is more then theory, and for you to call it that is not coherently based on any research. There are many scholors who studied this and have explained it away. It is documented by believers as well as non believers alike, and its very accurate as far as the time line is involved. If you want , you can look up my original response to yankee, but if you havent studied the resurrection how can you make a wild assertion that it is just a theory? Is alexander a theory? is the roman empire a theory? is the revolutionary war a theory? Lets be reasonable.

"Because I know many. They find the idea of god nonsene. Without any science or evidene from both sides. My dad doesn’t knows anything about science, he just thinks religion is nonsense from the past. Another guy based it on history. People who are not raised with the idea there is a god often find it absurd ideas. They don’t need evidence he does not exists, they just don’t care for religion or gods. "

Ok that fair,as long as they dont call their decision reasonable or rational I can live with that as I have always believed that people have a right to believe what they want as long as they dont push it on me.

“You are pushing your religion on people. Now you want to push it on my dad too. Why do you want to push your religion so hard on people?”

i simply made a suggestion. How do you define that as pushing? i said he might want to look into it, is that the same as he has to believe it or he must believe it? Sheesh. Just say thats ok and i will forget the whole thing lol.

“More prejudice and insults. Its no use talking to you because you are already convinced you know what “all atheists” are like”

Again, I think it was you that first made the statement gods with unicorns and that there is no proof of gods existence. If you dont wanna do the leg work then maybe you shouldnt make wild assumptions that you know are insulting the beliefs of others. I think it was your statement that caused my statement. Plus you are correct on one thing, I shouldnt say all atheists, but I do contend with most atheists. maybe in europe they dont push their beliefs on others (maybe , maybe not im not 100% sure as I havent done my research, fair enough?), but i do know that here in the states they are very pushy.

"I know several religious people (christians) who believe in god without knowing or having looked up the evidence for jesus ressurection. Some may need it, but not all. And for some people this kind of “evidence” won’t work either. I’m sorry you cannot handle that not everyone follows your religion. "

yes i do too, and to me they are the truely blessed of our faith because jesus revealed things to them that alot of people might not ever see. To me faith is more of a spiritual gift not a physical or mental one. I can handle perfectly well that people cant accept my religion as I have friends from every religion out there (our best friend of the family is muslim), from muslim, orthodox christian,hindu (my best friend is a hindu), and even atheist (with lower case a)., and they would never make a claim like you did about not enough evidence, as they have respect for my beliefs and I have respect for theirs, but when you make a statement like you have, expect me to respond with teh best of my ability, knowledge and passion.

You don’t even know what I looked up, you already have decided it must be something like a communistic push-atheism-on-people desire which I hide.

"And please, quit calling me “friend” when you don’t act like one. You act disrespectfull, rude, push your religion on me, know nothing about the other side, show prejudice, your the militant one here. I have nothing against normal christians, but I do have problems with militant, fundamentalist ones who act rude. I am sorry, I see no use in talking with you anymore since you already are convinced you know everything, even my motives. Thats os arrogant. Please talk to someone else. I know not wanting to talk to you makes me a “militant atheist” to you, but then again, all atheists are that way to you already. Your attitude is why I do not like to talk with you anymore, not your arguments. "

I think your confusing a response with prejudice again. I think I explained to you why I made teh statement that I made and if you feel you can make blanket statements and expect people not to respond back correcting it your equating rudeness with being a wallflower.
I do not know all your motives and I never stated that I do, but I made teh claim that most miltant atheists reponded this way with the statement you made 2 posts or so ago. If you feel that I was incorrect in my assumption feel free to correct me and i will admit that i am wrong.
Its like me making a blanket statement which was militant about atheism and expecting no response at all from people.

I dont think its possible to continue this conversation properly. If my arguments for why I don’t believe with are you are painfull for you (the comparison with a unicorn) what use has it to further hurt you in debate? I don’t think you want to hear the rest of my debates, nor do you have any background in them, it would mean you would have to look up loads of science which you might find more hurtfull. I can well debate arguments like comparisons with unicorns with other christians, or compare one philosophy to another, but if that for you is a problem, we better not continue, because I do not have the intention to create drama here. I have no intentions to hurt you or have debate to get you upset. When I say evidence is not convincing, commonly its a normal point in a debate about evidence. In fact, I often have discussions about wether evidence is good enough, convincing, with christians, atheists, jews scientists. We can better stop this thing, I do not seek drama here.

 

[wallstreeterww]

I dont think its possible to continue this conversation properly. If my arguments for why I don’t believe with are you are painfull for you (the comparison with a unicorn) what use has it to further hurt you in debate? I don’t think you want to hear the rest of my debates, nor do you have any background in them, it would mean you would have to look up loads of science which you might find more hurtfull. I can well debate arguments like comparisons with unicorns with other christians, or compare one philosophy to another, but if that for you is a problem, we better not continue, because I do not have the intention to create drama here. I have no intentions to hurt you or have debate to get you upset. When I say evidence is not convincing, commonly its a normal point in a debate about evidence. In fact, I often have discussions about wether evidence is good enough, convincing, with christians, atheists, jews scientists. We can better stop this thing, I do not seek drama here.

there you you go again, thinking that your supposed lack of evidence and colorful phraseology without any evidence to back it up would hurt my debate. Your doing it again lol
So far in this thread you have presented no evidence at all, and not only that, but you have also stated that you do not care to look into the theories that main stream science is offering up. Your not getting me upset, in fact I think that I am getting you upset which was also never my intention in the first place.You state that I would need to do some research to look up your evidences yet you have presented absolutely nothing here that is scientific, and not only that but you also do not care to know anything about the theories that I have presented here.
It looks to me that you are the angry one and you are trying to project that anger out on me.

My posts stand on solid ground and they are supported historically as well as scientifically. If you want to ignore these factors then by all means thats your perogative, but saying that im wrong without presenting any facts at all and at the same time calling me angry when im not will not change that fact that you havent come out with a single iota of a coherent rebuttal to disprove the evidences that I have brought out. From the fine tuning (Cosmological argument) to the historicty of jesus. If Your atheism is based on being culturally conditioned to believe in it seems like the fad in europe then its cool and I can understand that, but for you to say that I would need to go back and study your facts and that it strikes fear in me is ludricous, because as i said before and will say it again, if your not interested in the science and history behind the evidence then you dont have much of a case at all.

I Dont want to cause doubt or anger in you also so I will let this debate rest and let your evidence against my evidence do the talking and i will let seekers (whoever it may be that happens to stumble into this thread) look at both our evidences and make an honest decision on their own as to who presented the evidence in a coherent fashion that made perfect sense and who didnt. As far as Unicorns i would myself tend to think that someone who believes that god doesnt exist based on no research at all is more inclined to believe in unicorns than than someone who believes in the incredible order and beauty of this universe just coming about through random blind chance.
Good day

 

[exan]

there you you go again, thinking that your supposed lack of evidence and colorful phraseology without any evidence to back it up would hurt my debate. Your doing it again lol
So far in this thread you have presented no evidence at all, and not only that, but you have also stated that you do not care to look into the theories that main stream science is offering up. Your not getting me upset, in fact I think that I am getting you upset which was also never my intention in the first place.You state that I would need to do some research to look up your evidences yet you have presented absolutely nothing here that is scientific, and not only that but you also do not care to know anything about the theories that I have presented here.
It looks to me that you are the angry one and you are trying to project that anger out on me.

My posts stand on solid ground and they are supported historically as well as scientifically. If you want to ignore these factors then by all means thats your perogative, but saying that im wrong without presenting any facts at all and at the same time calling me angry when im not will not change that fact that you havent come out with a single iota of a coherent rebuttal to disprove the evidences that I have brought out. From the fine tuning (Cosmological argument) to the historicty of jesus. If Your atheism is based on being culturally conditioned to believe in it seems like the fad in europe then its cool and I can understand that, but for you to say that I would need to go back and study your facts and that it strikes fear in me is ludricous, because as i said before and will say it again, if your not interested in the science and history behind the evidence then you dont have much of a case at all.

I Dont want to cause doubt or anger in you also so I will let this debate rest and let your evidence against my evidence do the talking and i will let seekers (whoever it may be that happens to stumble into this thread) look at both our evidences and make an honest decision on their own as to who presented the evidence in a coherent fashion that made perfect sense and who didnt. As far as Unicorns i would myself tend to think that someone who believes that god doesnt exist based on no research at all is more inclined to believe in unicorns than than someone who believes in the incredible order and beauty of this universe just coming about through random blind chance.
Good day

The problem is not that I don’t want to discuss your evidence, but that you find my reasoning and arguments upsetting and i find your prejudice offensive. If a unicorn comparison is too much for you, you cannot handle the rest. The pink unicorn is not meant litterally, its a well known rhetorical illustration. The problem is have no interest in a one sided debate, where I have to walk on my toes because some arguments are offending you and you go rant about militant again.

 

[Ridgerunner]

As a person untrained in scientific disciplines perhaps I should not speak, and I may well regret doing so. But here goes.

Regarding Hawking particularly, there are suggestions that he might not be an avid nonbeliever, but it certainly doesn’t seem that he is a believer either. His comment about the Pope inclines one to think he is certainly unfriendly to the Catholic Church. Whether that’s because he retains some residue of having been raised in an anti-Catholic, but nevertheless religious milieu or whether it is because he simply sees the Catholic Church as the biggest hobgoblin in the room isn’t clear. But his hostility toward the Church is.

In any event, what Hawking believes or does not believe about the existence of God or the backwardness of the Church does not matter to the big question.

Sometimes I wonder whether the conversations that are had between religious believers and atheists serve any purpose. It seems almost particularly so when the conversation takes place in the language of science. To some, scientific inquiry supports faith. To some it supports atheism. Regardless of the scientific parts of such people, one almost has to conclude that their faith or their lack thereof has origins other than the study of science itself. And, I think, it’s pretty idle to speculate as to what those origins might be.

Perhaps someone will persuade me that the state of knowledge in some scientific field of inquiry is definitive as to God’s existence or non-existence. In the film clip, Hawking, who I presume is agnostic at most, asserts that the definitive point has not been reached. Without really saying so, he speculates that there might be some point at which it might be reached, and that point, to him, would be the point at which space/time began (not necessarily a big bang, but some point or other) His yardstick would be whether that point demonstrated that a putative God had freedom of action prior to it or not. If not, there is no God. Philosophically, he would be right about that, because the nature of God as we understand it, demands freedom as one of His attributes.

Of course, that definitive point always seems to recede. Some things in astrophysics, which is Hawking’s field, recede from view because there is no known physical way to ever view them; the inside of a black hole, for example, and it’s entirely possible none will ever be found. A mystery forever. In the same way, some seem to think they have at least possible answers to what caused the “string” that blew in the Big Bang, and posit all sorts of things about “membranes” and “dimensions” interacting to create the “string”. I don’t even know what all the theories are. Some physicists doubt X and some doubt Y, and oftentimes nobody knows what Joe over there is even talking about when he speaks of Z. But sometimes Joe is later proved right, at least mathematically. But regardless, the more the physicists do this, the more they’re talking about their blackboards than they are talking about anything anyone has seen, let alone tested, and the very nature of it makes one wonder whether any of those theoretical things will ever be known any better that how it works out on a blackboard.

So, Hawking’s point of definitive determination may always recede. And the more removed from anything physically verifiable these fellows get, the less certain they become; particularly because they explode each others’ theories and mathematical models all the time. It’s the thing they do. In any event, one suspects that Hawking knows he is talking pie in the sky of a scientific sort, and thinks whatever he thinks about God independently of it. He can’t prove there is a God or that there isn’t, and I suspect he knows he will never do either one.

And, it seems to me, that one shouldn’t expect to. After all, if God is God, He’s “utterly other”, being infinite, and our penetration of infinity is just a preposterous notion, either as a proof of His existence, or of His non-existence. If we could penetrate infinity (and I doubt scientists would say we can, each for perhaps his various reasons) we would be God ourselves, so in a way, the whole “search” ends in a brick wall no matter what.

But if there is a God, and if that God is infinite, there is really no way WE can impose laws on HIM, and I think Hawking would agree with that. That’s implicit in what Hawking is saying in the clip. Consequently, if God is free of the laws we sometimes observe in action and otherwise work out mathematically, it is absolutely impossible to deny His existence no matter what else we think we know about the historical record or non-record about Jesus, and no matter what anomalies we feel we have found in the Bible. And if we cannot deny His existence, we cannot deny that He is the God of the Christians (or of any other religion, or even of all of them). If He is the God of the Christians, everything else in Christianity is possible.

(continued)

 

[Ridgerunner]

(continued)
Nor can we deny that God, if He exists would be aware of us. Nor can we deny that He would, if He is free, might elect to communicate to us in a way of His choosing, not necessarily in ours. One might think in terms of something like a blind sea slug that “communicates” with other sea slugs by means of chemical signals. If we approached the slug, it would not be aware of our nature, and if we touched the slug, and if it had nerves with which to feel, it would be aware only of our touch. Our touch would be all the slug would know, or be capable of knowing about our nature. Certainly, that touch would communicate nothing of Shakespeare, Mozart or Hawking. But it would inform the slug of our existence and some little information about our nature (touch from above. Strong push. Limited area. Not touching me before. Perhaps unknown chemical composition.) So, we really can’t critique God’s communication with us, if indeed He exists,is free and does communicate, any more than the sea slug could complain because we did not somehow communicate all of Shakespeare to him notwithstanding that he had no means of taking in the communication and his brain could not hold it anyway.

Now, I am a believer. All of the erudite folk in here have doubtless figured that out. I am going to admit right up front that I cannot fully explain why I am a believer. Ancestry? Culture? Early teaching? Reading? Grace? Natural law? Because I want to be? Nor can anyone else explain it, because no one, however adept at psychology, can reallyl know. They can’t know because if anything like Grace (the touch to the sea slug) exists, it’s outside the realm of psychology’s competence as a human science or quasi-science.

But, in looking at it over the years, I have never seen or heard or read any good reason why I should not be. Science? It knows it doesn’t know. Hawking admits that, despite his likely (in my mind) at least agnosticism. His own language of physics won’t let him say he knows. Anomalies in the Bible? There are anomalies in Shakespeare and we don’t deny the reality of his almost superhuman wisdom because of it. Is the Bible in the language of historians or of poets? That argument will never end, and will bear little fruit because perhaps its both or neither.

But not having sufficient reason to be atheist is not the same as having sufficient reason for faith. So, then is Christianity persuasive to me in the sort of scattered, pointillist way humans come to believe anything? The way I was persuaded of my mother’s love? I would have to say “yes” to both.

That will never convince an atheist, and I’m not trying to do that. There are enough brick walls I can pound my head against, and I don’t particularly desire to go looking for new ones.

Now, I’ll yield the floor and let heads knock and drop-dead arguments get made without my further interruption. Be of good cheer!

 

[wallstreeterww]

The problem is not that I don’t want to discuss your evidence, but that you find my reasoning and arguments upsetting and i find your prejudice offensive. If a unicorn comparison is too much for you, you cannot handle the rest. The pink unicorn is not meant litterally, its a well known rhetorical illustration. The problem is have no interest in a one sided debate, where I have to walk on my toes because some arguments are offending you and you go rant about militant again.

Again your citing prejudice when there isnt any. The unicorn comparison isnt too much to handle. I actually find it funny that someone like you who doesnt have the basic knowledge of the theories of the beginning of the universe and your too ignorant to even want to study them. You are ignorant even from an atheists standpoints. At least most atheists who can make that statement have some evidencr to back it up. You are no different than Kirk Cameron who got up on the debating podium and looked like a fool debating the almost as bad rational response squad. The RRS won that debate not on their evidence but on Camericans absurd evidence. Your evidence is non existent and right now you are deviating from the core of the debate because you have nothing to show for it. As I said when people will look at the presented evidence i put out and look at the ignorant posts you made (Basically calling me angry and prejudice) with absolutely no evidence to back you up, your actually hurting the atheist cause and not helping it.

I stand by my evidence, and I dare you to form a coherent rebuttal instead of resorting to name calling and nothing of substance to back up your beliefs. You yourself said that you dont care to know any of the scientific argument. This is what debating folks call reasoning from the side of ignorance. I hope your brethren in Europe are a little more educated on these subjects than you are my friend. At least Yankeedoodle had some remnants of intelligence to just stop posting . The old saying works well here. Sometimes its better to not speak at all and let people one is an idiot then to speak and remove all doubt.

Im glad that you actually are making an even stronger case for my beliefs than I could ever do myself.
god bless

 

[exan]

As a person untrained in scientific disciplines perhaps I should not speak, and I may well regret doing so. But here goes.

…]
about Jesus, and no matter what anomalies we feel we have found in the Bible. And if we cannot deny His existence, we cannot deny that He is the God of the Christians (or of any other religion, or even of all of them). If He is the God of the Christians, everything else in Christianity is possible.

Black holes are already found. The largest known supermassive black hole is located in OJ 287 weighing in at 18 billion solar masses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OJ_287.

Hawking stated he was atheist himself, see interview a few posts back, but was married to two christian women, so he does not seem to have much problems with religious people. He also visited the pope more than once. It may be that after his cheating wife he became more hostile towards the church, since he mentioned religious differences played a part in the divorce - but then he married christian woman number two. (who didnt act very christian)
As ar as Hawkings reasoning goes: its interesting to see how he can bring his topics in a way that make anyone interpretate them the way they want, so many agree with him and find them interesting. He stays agnostic in debate, and writes his books in ways that people can interpretate in many ways. He is a smart marketing man. Every book of him bears his picture on the front cover, which is not usual for science books, he appears in TV shows where scientists normally don’t, features in star trek, and makes popular claims about “Looking into the mind of god” and “I will find the theory of everything” which stir the masses. He knows how to play an audience.
Mathematics on the black board have been proven many times when thought unprovable. If you cannot go close to things you can still measure things from here. Or generate them in a particle generator. I have no doubt we will find the truth at some point, but it may take a lot of time. Wether it be M-theory strings, whatever. As scientists say, we are very much on the right way on the M-theory project or it may turn out to be nonsense. Both can happen, but its fun. So far its just right on the mathematics board. Scientsts are honest about theories, when they are not proven (just theory, only on the blackboard), half proven (like big bang) or considered fully proven (like earth is round, evolution). Only problem is that evolution is still called “evolution theory” in popular speech where science considers it fully proven. It was a theory when Darwin published it and has kept the name in popular speech ever since.

I also have no doubt we will Hawking EVER state god cannot exist, not good for his popularity andmarketing. But even if he would find god had no choice in the laws of this universe, it won’t matter for religious, they will just state that god started setting the laws a few universes back so they would turn out like they do now. Or created the infinity like it was.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Black holes are already found. The largest known supermassive black hole is located in OJ 287 weighing in at 18 billion solar masses. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OJ_287. ** I never said they weren’t found. I think you’re thinking of someone else’s post perhaps. **

Hawking stated he was atheist himself, see interview a few posts back, but was married to two christian women, so he does not seem to have much problems with religious people. He also visited the pope more than once. It may be that after his cheating wife he became more hostile towards the church, since he mentioned religious differences played a part in the divorce - but then he married christian woman number two. (who didnt act very christian)
As ar as Hawkings reasoning goes: its interesting to see how he can bring his topics in a way that make anyone interpretate them the way they want, so many agree with him and find them interesting. He stays agnostic in debate, and writes his books in ways that people can interpretate in many ways. He is a smart marketing man. Every book of him bears his picture on the front cover, which is not usual for science books, he appears in TV shows where scientists normally don’t, features in star trek, and makes popular claims about “Looking into the mind of god” and “I will find the theory of everything” which stir the masses. He knows how to play an audience.
Mathematics on the black board have been proven many times when thought unprovable. If you cannot go close to things you can still measure things from here. Or generate them in a particle generator. I have no doubt we will find the truth at some point, but it may take a lot of time. Wether it be M-theory strings, whatever. As scientists say, we are very much on the right way on the M-theory project or it may turn out to be nonsense. Both can happen, but its fun. So far its just right on the mathematics board. Scientsts are honest about theories, when they are not proven (just theory, only on the blackboard), half proven (like big bang) or considered fully proven (like earth is round, evolution). Only problem is that evolution is still called “evolution theory” in popular speech where science considers it fully proven. It was a theory when Darwin published it and has kept the name in popular speech ever since.

I also have no doubt we will Hawking EVER state god cannot exist, not good for his popularity andmarketing. But even if he would find god had no choice in the laws of this universe, it won’t matter for religious, they will just state that god started setting the laws a few universes back so they would turn out like they do now. Or created the infinity like it was.

I am reasonably confident we will never see Hawking ever state he can prove God cannot exist, no matter what he believes about it. He admits he can’t do it now, and I doubt he would do it for effect or even if he thought he got it done, since these guys prove each wrong all the time. Since every new accepted theory of astro-history always calls for an antecedent event or condition until it seems like it doesn’t, then someone always discovers that it does, physicists have not even escaped the clutches of metaphysical causation and, in that sense, have not even cast Aristotle into the dustbin of human thought. Perhaps evolutionary theorists would say we’re inherently blocked from thinking beyond a point because whatever survival strategy function allowed us to get to that point would not enhance survivability beyond it, so it put a “period at the end of that sentence”, so to speak, in the same way that tiger tails only get so long. And one is almost compelled to believe that if evolutionary theory is correct, we truly will hit the “understanding capacity wall” someday. Of course, if we do, we will be inherently incapable of realizing we’re there. A sea slug cannot not realize that he cannot understand Shakespeare.

I don’t know what believers would say in the unlikely event Hawking or someone posed a mathematical demonstration that physical laws determine everything in the universe from start to now, including its existence. You could be right. But possibly they would say “just wait, someone will show it to be wrong in a year or two” and they would probably be proved right in saying it. Or, they might just say (it’s simpler actually) that all the physical laws and those things governed by them are simply a minor aspect of God; like an atom in one of my wrist hairs. Possibly, too, they might say that since God’s will is immutable, of COURSE He’s bound by laws he created because what He wills is part of his Person. Then again, they might say the physical laws are but one language in which God expresses himself, and beyond which we cannot comprehend; rather like my dog can understand “Good dog”, but not the Chanson de Roland in medieval French. Worse, they might even say that all the physical laws of the universe are nothing greater than the fifteenth-most-important thought/function of one of the lesser angels.

Sorry I can’t rise to the bait of disputing evolutionary theory for you. I don’t particularly doubt it, though I do think sometimes some of its proponents make claims for it that are so extravagant as to reasonably cause one to think they are too much in love with it to look at it in a truly scientific way. But as you say Hawking is, maybe those are just the “popularizers”, and should be granted a certain poetic license.

 

[exan]

I am reasonably confident we will never see Hawking ever state he can prove God cannot exist, no matter what he believes about it. He admits he can’t do it now, and I doubt he would do it for effect or even if he thought he got it done, since these guys prove each wrong all the time.

Other guys disproving things never stopped Hawking from posting things. He posts what he believes in, even if its absurd in the eyes of others. Sometimes it takes long to convince others, it has been with some of his ideas, it took a while for others to realize they were true. He also once in a while proves himself wrong, because with new evidence he finds thats something cannot work, andthe new theory fits better. These guys like to have the best ideas, but also work together, they can prove eachother wrong, but also prove eachother right and add to eachothers ideas. That way they’ve come together to a lot of usefull theories they now all agree about, and from which they search on for new ones. A some point one is right and they go a step further. Every step of the way is discussed, tried to disproven, improved and they are having fun in the meantime. Thats science. Not all theories are disproved all the time, theres a survival of the fittest in science theories, best theories stay, others die off

 

[yankee_doodle]

yankee, it seems like your the only one who thinks it leaves alot to be desired since you are a militant atheist. I think we discussed the resurrection here and you chose not to respond. I presented my case , you didnt respond and now you come with the conclusion with no explanation that there isnt any historicty to the resurrection of jesus.

sorry … I have a life (and sometimes I don’t have time to check into CAF).

If we were on a debating podium you would be laughed off the floor by your own atheist brethren. You are the atheist version of kirk cameron my friend. I think you need to present a case on why you think there is no historicity. I would advise you to go and do your homework on my old posts then come back with an answer a little more in depth then a one liner with nothing to back it up.

sure I’ll present a case. This god who allegedly appeared countless times to the ancients, split the red sea, turned the Nile into blood, raised a god-man from the death, flooded the earth, etc. Hasn’t shown himself to modern man ever in our history (in an independently verifiable way).

Nevertheless theists demand we believe the stories of ancient men, from perhaps the most superstitious civilization in history, where the only evidence is copies upon copies of yet more copies of manuscripts no one can even agree on.

Religion logically reduces to the absurd, and its metaphysical arguments are arguments from incredulity.

I presented the evidence from within the bible and from outside the bible and if you had an objections or points to make. As far as the karl marx statement about religion and god he said plainly that religion was the opium of the masses etc etc. I can understand why you spend so much time on this forum, your lack of research is abysmal.

the bible cannot prove itself (do you understand the concept of corroborating evidence)? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof … and you haven’t presented anything close.

Thats like you asking me why I dont like atheism, and I respond by saying " because i say so and thats all the evidence that i need to give"

huh?

I would also advice a little soul searching and therapy for your true problem which is hatred of god, because it seems like your answers are a bit emotional and lacking much substance.

here’s my favorite. A man who believes in talking snakes, flying angels, god-men who rise from the dead, rivers that turn into blood, etc. thinks those who disagree are nuts

classic

As far as the craig - hitchens debate, would you like me to get some quotes from your fellow atheist brethren on their own websites talking about their opinion on who won the debate?
It also seems like you are looking at that debate from an emotional standpoint then from a coherent standpoint. Who says that atheists lack intelligence and coherency:thumbsup:

no … Hitchens kills Craig every time they debate; and they’ve debated three times I think (it’s Craig who relies on emotive arguments, which prove nothing).

Anyway, I’ll look forward to the next volley of insults (it’s where you guys always wind up, so I’m never surprised … although the vicious attacks from theists did take some getting used too).

 

[wallstreeterww]

:As far as the reliability of god showing himself to man, my old posts here show the evidence from within the bible from even paul himself who was one of the biggest critics of jesus and christianity. He did an amazing about turn when he saw jesus after he was resurrected. This among over 500 people seeing him resurrected. You also have historians from outside the bible who were non believers who documented these things.

“here’s my favorite. A man who believes in talking snakes, flying angels, god-men who rise from the dead”

Yankee , again when your talking about talking snakes your referring to the book of genesis which has been discussed many times over. A layman like you who just reads it on the surface deceptively misses the point in that most of genesis was written conceptually, but someone like you who probably never took a class in bible history wouldnt understand this much and yet you keep bringing up the same old tired and debunked arguments, and just because something like the resurrection happened which is extrordinary doesnt make it false.

You keep claiming that extraordinary events need extraordinary evidence. Again with all of these poeple within the bible and even Jesus’s critics claiming this, plus the fact that you were prosecuted and killed for even saying anything positive about jesus or believing in him makes it even more extraordinary. Put this in there with the fact that pauls first letter to the corinthian church was at most 5 years after the event, it makes the historicity of the resurrection much more accurate then almost any other historic event of those times.
Yankee, before you had 1 foot stuck in your mouth but I guess one wasnt enough. Your good at trying to deflect the issue we are discussing which was the resurrection but im gonna bring you back into it even if you are showing signs of uncomfortability in discussing it.
You also seem to have a “HUH” problem which shows me that you are having difficulty in comprehension of certain things. I think so far your the only one exhibiting this problem. It either makes you the most intelligent person on this forum or .
Colorful phraseology and rhetoric doesnt bring a solid foundation to your side of the debate my friend…

Part 2 debunking your claim that Hitchens beat Craig and that Craig spanked Hitchens like a child.

 

[wallstreeterww]

Now lets show how dishonest and inept you really are by what you claimed happed in the Craig-Hitchens debate. Im going to now present the opinions of atheistic websites on the debate between the 2. Now dont get angry Yankee but I told you that I went out and did some research a month ago on this debate. From reviews from leading atheists, they are claiming that hitchens didnt even belong on the same debating podium as craig lol.
Keep lying to us my friend, if you produce a volume of lies maybe someone at some point will believe you.

This is from a website called DEBUNKING CHRITIANITY (as atheist as you can get lol)

debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2009/04/william-lane-craig-won-by-landslide.html

This Blog Linked From Here

.
By John W. Loftus at 4/06/2009 That’s what Roger Sharp said on Facebook after watching the debate in person. [Full disclosure, Sharp is a Christian]. This is exactly what I had predicted. Christian professor Doug Geivett weighed in on the debate where he said: Craig “was thoroughly prepared for every aspect of the debate and never faltered in his response to objections by Hitchens,” and that Hitchens’s arguments “were largely unfocused, sometimes disconnected, and often irrelevant.”** Over at Common Sense Atheism (which is a great source for Craig debates) is an atheist review of the debate where we read: “Frankly Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child.” For more info visit here.**
I would really like to try my hand at debating the master debater. Anyone else like to see that? If the debate was on Christianity vs. Atheism, what would you think my chances are? See the new poll on the sidebar. You can choose more than one answer.

This is from common sense atheism, which is a very popular atheistic website that also follows doctor craigs debates intensely.Yankee, I appologize at hand if these reviews wake you up from your irrational statements.

commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230

The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. Perhaps Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” He did not even bother to give his concluding remarks, ceding the time instead to Q&A.

This always seemed like a pointless matchup to me. One is a loudmouthed journalist and the other is a major analytic philosopher.

Shall I go one yankee. Im not even brining christian critics. This is from your militant side here.
Do you need more or did make emphasize it enough for you. Logic and reality seems to have flown out the window for you, I would suggest a little more research into the debate buddy lol