Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Calls Atheist Hotline a ‘Wrong Number’

0

An upcoming atheist hotline, meant for people struggling with their faith but have nowhere to turn, is a "wrong number whose service should be disconnected," said a Christian philosopher, pointing out that its backers lack philosophical rigor and find themselves at an intellectual impasse.


Recovering from Religion, a secular company seeking to provide people leaving their religious views with various resources, apparently has nothing to say about arguments for or against God's existence, said William Lane Craig, Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif.

The secular group, along with the "New Atheist" movement in general, focus on the social effects of religion in an attempt to portray it in a negative way, Craig said in a statement Monday. The group's website, he pointed out, states that "many people" flee their religion because they "realize how much conflict religious belief creates."

Recovering from Religion hopes to raise $30,000 by June 30 for "The Hotline Project." The group has announced on its website that it is launching "a brand new campaign to … provide a valuable service for people struggling with their faith, with nowhere to turn."

Written By: Anugrah Kumar
continue to source article at christianpost.com

NO COMMENTS

  1. ” pointing out that its backers lack philosophical rigor “

    So, these backers must also lack the ability to commit oxymoron’s!

    On a related note I am banned from commenting on the the WLC youtube video channel. Perhaps it had something to do with me pointing out that WLC is devoid of any empirical support for his wackaloon apologetics efforts. These ” argument ” guys get a bit touch when you point out that argument not backed by evidence is just empty words. .

  2. “wrong number whose service should be disconnected,”

    Well he would say that wouldn’t he? The last thing religious fanatics want is for people to be made aware of the alternatives..

    Oh and BTW William, it can’t be disconnected before its actually connected

  3. Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a little bizarre? Am I being naive or is there really a demand for such a service?

    Obviously I’m not saying it shouldn’t be set up, but I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would consider calling such a hotline.

    • Me neither, but then it says it’s for people struggling with their faith who need support. I never have been at all religious. Atheist Hotline is a poor description.

      In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

      Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a little bizarre? Am I being naive or is there really a demand for such a service?

      Obviously I’m not saying it shouldn’t be set up, but I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would consider calling such a…

      • In reply to #5 by Marktony:

        Me neither, but then it says it’s for people struggling with their faith who need support. I never have been at all religious. Atheist Hotline is a poor description.

        In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

        Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a littl…

        I think the name’s okay, but the description is poor. Anyone ringing this number would know what they’re getting.

        • The name is “The Hotline Project”, not very descriptive. If you follow the link it is subtitled “A Secular Service Project from Recovering from Religion” and in the blurb it says they want to “provide a valuable service for people struggling with their faith, with nowhere to turn”.

          Would this short description be more to you liking?

          “A hotline provided by the Secular Movement for people struggling with their faith”

          In reply to #14 by Nitya:

          In reply to #5 by Marktony:

          Me neither, but then it says it’s for people struggling with their faith who need support. I never have been at all religious. Atheist Hotline is a poor description.

          In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

          Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘athe…

          • In reply to #43 by Marktony:

            The name is “The Hotline Project”, not very descriptive. If you follow the link it is subtitled “A Secular Service Project from Recovering from Religion” and in the blurb it says they want to “provide a valuable service for people struggling with their faith, with nowhere to turn”.

            Would this sho…

            I was responding to what I thought was “Atheist Hotline”. Pretty silly, I admit. I then jumped to the conclusion that a person ringing a number called Atheist Hotline would be after the sort of answers one would get if one had ceased to believe and was having a hard time in some way. From now on I’ll check my facts more thoroughly before pressing the reply button.

    • In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

      Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a little bizarre? Am I being naive or is there really a demand for such a service?

      I think the term “Atheist Hotline” is a little unfortunate. Their stated intention is to not deconvert people, but to offer support for those with doubts or who are struggling to come to terms with being an atheist in a hostile environment.

    • In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

      Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a little bizarre? Am I being naive or is there really a demand for such a service?

      Obviously I’m not saying it shouldn’t be set up, but I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would consider calling such a…

      In many parts of the world simply coming out as an Atheist can have huge ramifications to that persons life. If you are in danger of losing your job,your spouse, your kids and all standing in the community, possibly even your life, you probably would appreciate a friendly voice on the phone giving good advice.
      Given that this hotline is in the States where we have heard of so many cases of isolated atheists who are cut adrift from their local communities and tragically families for breaking the taboo of using their own brains to decide what is real.
      This is a support line in that respect ( rather like the bullying hotlines kids can use) rather than somewhere to got to be convinced of atheism.

    • In reply to #3 by Archaic Torso:

      Putting aside Craig’s comments for a moment, does the idea of an ‘atheist hotline’ not seem a little bizarre? Am I being naive or is there really a demand for such a service?

      Obviously I’m not saying it shouldn’t be set up, but I can’t imagine circumstances in which I would consider calling such a…

      Really ? How many people must there be out there in the bible-koran-torah-bhagavadgita-thumping communities who have strong internal conflict and doubt but have no-one rational or sceptic to talk to ?

  4. Recovering from Religion…apparently has nothing to say about arguments for or against God’s existence.

    Why should it have? The argument is settled a long time ago. Now its job is just to help people recover from religion. The clue is in the name, Craig. Is it really that hard to figure things out? But I guess your confusion is understandable. After all, you have made a career out of not understanding things.

    • Go look up the “Gish Gallop” and you will see why scientists tend not to engage anymore. Though I admit, if anyone was going to do it, it should be Dr. Dawkins. Or Mr. Nye, cause that would be awesome.

      In reply to #6 by Pauly01:

      Remind me again why Richard wouldn’t debate this guy.

  5. William Lane Craig Calls Atheist Hotline a ‘Wrong Number’ whose service should be disconnected,” said [the] Christian philosopher, pointing out that its backers lack philosophical rigor and find themselves at an intellectual impasse.

    An opinion on philosophical rigour and intellectual standards! – From William Lame Craig! Ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

  6. A little quote mining,

    … “traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation.”…

    I thought they were all refuted.

    … “In fact, many of the brightest philosophers today are theists, “…

    Does the word “many” mean more than half ? or does it mean more than 1 ?

    W.L.Craig is a great speaker, no doubt, but over the years his distortions have been systematically uncovered and people are wise to them. Many other theist speakers in the past have been slowly backed into corners, where they eventually distortions become lies.

    • In reply to #9 by old-toy-boy:

      … “In fact, many of the brightest philosophers today are theists, “…

      Does the word “many” mean more than half ? or does it mean more than 1 ?

      You should know that whether counting: beans, supporters, or thousands of years, “many” to fundies, means numbers which cannot be counted by using fingers and two thumbs!

      It’s a bit like past primitive cultures:

      Do cultures with a one, two, many system exist?
      Yes. Blake’s Australian Aboriginal Languages points out Aborigines felt no need to count, and while they all had words for “one” and “two” only some made it to “three” and “four”. 1

      The Walpiri, for example, only has words for “one”, “two”, and “many”,

      I think we are dealing with asserted “theological fact” (Not to be confused with evidenced reality), and the theological semantic redefinition of “brightest” which means “an invented shiny badge of authority which agrees with my circular arguments and biases”!

      Those phil-slopicers must be really “bright” because agree with him! – in his unhumble opinion! So by fallacious circular “reasoning”, his arguments are supported by the “authority” of the (redefined) “brightest” ! -
      Durrrr – Dumb! de dumb! de dumb! !
      Sheeple follower Lame-Craig fans, can now tell those atheists and scientists this, – with airs of (comical) intellectual superiority!!!

      • I know that I am new to these threads, but why the name calling? I’m all for a bit of fun, and I even slip myself sometimes, but labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us is no better than them calling us “immoral” because we don’t agree with them.

        The central religious point has always been that if you are having a crisis of faith that you need to be bought back into the fold. That this hotline exists is a direct threat to that point. The arguments to those being counciled for a crisis of faith are usually a bunch of nonscense about temptation (by reason) and that god works in mysterious ways.

        The best way to help those questioning is not to sound like a bunch of meanies, but to show them that reason and morality go hand in hand, and that the world isn’t so mysterious at all.

        /rant

        In reply to #27 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #9 by old-toy-boy:

        … “In fact, many of the brightest philosophers today are theists, “…

        Does the word “many” mean more than half ? or does it mean more than 1 ?

        You should know that whether counting: beans, supporters, or thousands of years, “many” to fundies, means numbers which…

        • In reply to #35 by BigDyTerminator:

          I know that I am new to these threads, but why the name calling? I’m all for a bit of fun, and I even slip myself sometimes, but labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us is no better than them calling us “immoral” because we don’t agree with them.

          The central religious point…

          ” labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us “

          It is a little deeper than non-agreement here and is sheeple really that mean as I could think of many really ” mean ” things to say to the people who impose everything from blue laws to child murder ( recent faith healing court cases ) on the rest of us. WLC, and many of his followers, are liars, thieves and users. Some are much worse. That is why calling ” us ” immoral is not only inaccurate but hypocritical..

          • Calling him a liar, a thief and a user is all true. I’d even go so far as murder(I agree with you on faith healing). Calling his followers sheeple, or idiots or whatever is wrong. We have nothing to back up that claim. Maybe some don’t realize there is another way. Maybe some are scared to leave as they think their families will disinherit them. Maybe their minds have been filled with these stories from birth and they actually fear hell.

            Just labeling them as passive idiots takes away their humanity. We should be trying to find out what keeps people tied to faith and religion. They can’t all be stupid.

            In reply to #37 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #35 by BigDyTerminator:

            I know that I am new to these threads, but why the name calling? I’m all for a bit of fun, and I even slip myself sometimes, but labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us is no better than them calling us “immoral” because we don’t agree wi…

          • In reply to #38 by BigDyTerminator:

            Calling him a liar, a thief and a user is all true. I’d even go so far as murder(I agree with you on faith healing). Calling his followers sheeple, or idiots or whatever is wrong. We have nothing to back up that claim. Maybe some don’t realize there is another way. Maybe some are scared to leave as…

            I was going to reply again to your missive but Alan4discussion did a very good job in his reply. I suggest you read it carefully and consider it well.

          • That’s cool, feel free to jump in any time!

            perhaps i am thinking about this incorrectly. I was heavily bullied as a kid, so I admit to a partially emotional response whenever I see something I believe is name calling. It could be that we are simply ascribing different meanings to one word, or different emotions.

            Even so, I do not wish to fight, I like it here, most places I’d have already been called a name by now!

            In reply to #44 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #38 by BigDyTerminator:

            Calling him a liar, a thief and a user is all true. I’d even go so far as murder(I agree with you on faith healing). Calling his followers sheeple, or idiots or whatever is wrong. We have nothing to back up that claim. Maybe some don’t realize there is another w…

          • In reply to #46 by BigDyTerminator:

            That’s cool, feel free to jump in any time!

            perhaps i am thinking about this incorrectly. I was heavily bullied as a kid, so I admit to a partially emotional response whenever I see something I believe is name calling. It could be that we are simply ascribing different meanings to one word, or di…

            ” Even so, I do not wish to fight “

            Who does?

            Even so, theists will fight and enslave if cornered. Recent history and past history support this well. Semantics are one thing, but the sheeple are another and they are extremely dangerous, even on average, so being ” nice ” to them goes only so far. Know that your utter submission to their delusion is what they really want, on average.

          • I’ll give you that sir/madam!

            And by all means, I am not suggesting we be nice to those sorts of people. The people who were brainwashed I think could use some kindness, especially since they are probably already getting crap from their ex religion. Those who really believe that they are right and we are evil because a 5,000yo book says so? I wouldn’t call them names, they are still human, but I am all for the ruthless application of science and logic.

            I am decently versed in the former, less so in the latter.

            In reply to #47 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #46 by BigDyTerminator:

            That’s cool, feel free to jump in any time!

            perhaps i am thinking about this incorrectly. I was heavily bullied as a kid, so I admit to a partially emotional response whenever I see something I believe is name calling. It could be that we are simply ascribing…

          • In reply to #49 by BigDyTerminator:

            I’ll give you that sir/madam!

            And by all means, I am not suggesting we be nice to those sorts of people. The people who were brainwashed I think could use some kindness, especially since they are probably already getting crap from their ex religion. Those who really believe that they are right an…

            Yes, they are still human and they run the gamut of human behavior. Still, the evil ones will use the brainwashed ones. That is my great concern.

          • What can be done for it? Seriously, I wish I knew. I have the good fortune if living in a very secular area. Even religious schools teach evolution, and most church going folks here would find this guys arguments moronic.

            I’ve never met the brainwashed save online, I don’t even know how to engage. On one hand I don’t want to be a jerk, on the other you are poking holes in cherished beliefs.

            Dang life is complicated.

            In reply to #53 by Neodarwinian:

            In reply to #49 by BigDyTerminator:

            I’ll give you that sir/madam!

            And by all means, I am not suggesting we be nice to those sorts of people. The people who were brainwashed I think could use some kindness, especially since they are probably already getting crap from their ex religion. Those who…

          • In reply to #49 by BigDyTerminator:

            And by all means, I am not suggesting we be nice to those sorts of people. The people who were brainwashed I think could use some kindness, especially since they are probably already getting crap from their ex religion.

            I think in this discussion we need to separate the people who are likely to be contacting the “Hot Line” for assistance in leaving a religion, and the “sheeple trolls” who sing the praises of the likes of Craig and Hovind, or simply assert bigoted ignorance.

            The former are seeking help and deserve support in resolving their mental conflicts and adjusting their lives. They want to change for the better.

            The latter just want to assert and regurgitate nonsense they have sheepishly absorbed. They are unlikely to respond positively to evidence or reason, so any debate with them is for the benefit of the wider audience where there is one. Ridiculing nonsense in front of an audience encourages thinking, and benefits those who are prepared to think!

            If you look at comments 15, 20, 21, and 23 on this discussion, http://www.richarddawkins.net/news-articles/2013/6/15/tokyo-protest-against-shark-fin-soup-at-muji-shop-video# you will see an example.
            There are plenty of other examples of me engaging in evidenced reasoned discussions with rational people, to expand and clarify scientific understanding, or to educate readers.

            Those who really believe that they are right and we are evil because a 5,000yo book says so? I wouldn’t call them names, they are still human, but I am all for the ruthless application of science and logic.

            In using “names” it is again important to separate ad-hominem name calling, from accurate terminology which some people may not like:

            ignorant = lacking knowledge of the subject, (especially in the case of know-it-alls)

            sheeple = sheep-like thinking,

            deluded = belief in fictitious mental images

            psychological projection = attributing personal failings to others.

            liar = someone making deceptive statements

            wilful liar = someone knowingly making deliberately deceptive statements.

            Dunning-Kruger-effect = too ignorant to be aware of their own ignorance.

            Where these are used as accurate descriptions, they valid terms.
            Those having core beliefs, or deep-rooted prejudices challenged, are likely to claim such challenges are offensive! – simply because of the challenge.

            I’ve never met the brainwashed save online, I don’t even know how to engage. On one hand I don’t want to be a jerk, on the other you are poking holes in cherished beliefs.

            In one to conversations it is usually pointless in raising issues with people who are not going to listen or positively engage. Brainwashed people (and others for that matter) often maintain a façade in personal conversations.

        • In reply to #35 by BigDyTerminator:

          I know that I am new to these threads, but why the name calling? I’m all for a bit of fun, and I even slip myself sometimes, but labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us is no better than them calling us “immoral” because we don’t agree with them.

          “Sheeple” is an abbreviation for “Sheep-like-people”. It is an accurate description of a particular limited form of mentality.

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

          Sheeple (a portmanteau of “sheep” and “people”) is a term in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research.

          @38 – Calling his followers sheeple, or idiots or whatever is wrong.

          Nope! it is accurate.

          We have nothing to back up that claim.

          But we do have evidence. There are a number of examples in the site archives of science-illiterate, sheeple singing the praises of “Lame”-Craig’s, fallacious illogic, pseudo-science, and Gish-galloping tactics, and (comically) citing him as an “expert opinion”!

          but labeling people “sheeple” just because they don’t agree with us is no better than them calling us “immoral” because we don’t agree with them.

          This is a false equivalence. The recognition of a sheeple mentality is based on objective observations. Describing atheists in general (rather than specific individuals’ conduct) as “immoral”, is just ignorant bigotry!

          @38 – Just labeling them as passive idiots takes away their humanity.

          Their fundamentalism does that for them! Labelling merely recognises the fact!

          We should be trying to find out what keeps people tied to faith and religion.

          Indoctrination, regular constant reassertions, organised social pressure from their cults, and hero worship of liars like Craig.

          They can’t all be stupid.

          Would you care to venture a percentage?

          Craig is as much of an expert on science and history, as Eric Hovind’s “New clear fizzicks”, is expert on atomic energy!

  7. Craig likes to present himself as a serious intellectual scholar. I’ve heard him debate. He comes across as a poser with no intellectual credibility. I’m not surprised Richard won’t debate him, he’s got better things to do.

  8. You know, I really want to donate to this Recovering from Religion hotline, but I just don’t want to join PayPal. I don’t understand why I have to get a PayPal account or register with them. So I guess won’t donate.

  9. I have watched dozens of Lane Craig videos. He is a con man. He uses the catalog of different logical fallacies. He has a standard patter he drags out over and over almost verbatim no matter how often it is debunked. In short, he is nauseating. He does not debate in good faith.

  10. When I watch Craig debate an atheist, I am most reminded of my high school debate experiences. He tries to “point” by throwing out a lot pseudo-scientific arguments, hoping his opponent will waste his time refuting each point, and if the atheist instead focuses on his own arguments, Craig then triumphantly announces, “Well, you didn’t address my argument so-and-so!” I remember him at the end of a debate telling Christopher Hitchens (who had just cleaned the floor with Craig), “Well, maybe next time you’ll come better prepared!” The man makes me ill.

    • In reply to #23 by prietenul:

      Craig then triumphantly announces, “Well, you didn’t address my argument so-and-so!” …. .. … “Well, maybe next time you’ll come better prepared!” The man makes me ill.

      I usually refer them to the Dinning-Kruger effect at that point, – or simply laugh at them!! – Too stupid and ignorant to know they didn’t have an argument in the first place!

      rjohn19 @17 – Who promoted this vermin to philosopher?

      .. Some “fisticated” theology college where he matched their fundie confirmation biases and fallacious thought processes!

      It helps them to keep turning out “theo-slopicers” who pretend to have philosophical skills!

    • In reply to #23 by prietenul:

      When I watch Craig debate an atheist, I am most reminded of my high school debate experiences. He tries to “point” by throwing out a lot pseudo-scientific arguments, hoping his opponent will waste his time refuting each point, and if the atheist instead focuses on his own arguments, Craig then trium…

  11. I was going to say this as I read the article, but I find that many people have already said it in the comments. I don’t know the bloke, but I wouldn’t give him a job as a philosopher. But he’s a bloody good marketer/advertisiing man.

  12. let me get this straight, people looking to escape their beliefs should not call a hotline to discuss with non-theists people, they should seek out a more persuasive theist? maybe one with a book out?

    “If anyone is calling the Recovering From Religion hotline looking for a philosophical, moral or scientific discussion, the conversation will no doubt leave them intellectually unsatisfied,”

    yes good point. equally any kids out there thinking of calling childline for a serious debate on the ethical issues surrounding parenthood will also find themselves intellectually unsatisfied. or anyone calling the samaritans for advice on the best font for their suicide note, seriously mate, don’t bother

    • In reply to #30 by Tyler Durden:

      Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig Calls Atheist Hotline…is how I read this heading on the front page due to the formatting of the text :)

      I noticed that, too, but even the truncated version has several meanings. “Hello, Atheist Hotline? I’d like to report that I’ve sited an atheist. Can you come have him arrested?” That would be funny if it weren’t true in many countries, including the country that WLC would like the USA to become.

  13. ‘professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God’. Now that’s what I call a waste of time! I’ve just finished reading Joseph McCabe’s excellent ‘The bankruptcy of religion’ in which he quotes Sir E. Ray Lankester likening such metaphysics to “a blind man in a dark room hunting for a black cat which is not there.”

    • In reply to #32 by Dover Beach:

      ‘professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God’. Now that’s what I call a waste of time!

      The history explains it! -

      At one time philosophy embraced what is now science, but when the science, mathematics, and logical reasoning were taken out of it and put in science departments, that just left the useless rump end of the magic metaphysics and mental contortions of “theological philosophy” (as now practised by ‘fisticated theologians finding employment in living-fossil “philosophy/theology departments”)!

      Natural philosophy or the philosophy of nature (from Latin philosophia naturalis) was the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe that was dominant before the development of modern science. It is considered to be the precursor of natural sciences such as physics.

      Natural science historically developed out of philosophy or, more specifically, natural philosophy. At older universities, long-established Chairs of Natural Philosophy are nowadays occupied mainly by physics professors.

      Modern meanings of the terms science and scientists date only to the 19th century. The naturalist-theologian William Whewell was the one who coined the term “scientist”. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word to 1834.

      • Wait, so I’m a natural philosopher? That’s awesome!

        On a random note is that shy PhDs are doctors of philosophy?

        In reply to #33 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #32 by Dover Beach:

        ‘professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God’. Now that’s what I call a waste of time!

        The history explains it! -

        At one time philosophy embraced what is now science, but wh…

      • In reply to #33 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #32 by Dover Beach:

        ‘professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God’. Now that’s what I call a waste of time!

        The history explains it! -

        At one time philosophy embraced what is now science, but wh…

        Pity I couldn’t press ‘like’ several times for this answer.

  14. If you are considering leaving your religion – Don’t let religious leaders or others bully or scare you into NOT leaving – especially if you already disbelieve it all….there’s plenty of non religious people who will help and not judge you – The hotline is there for positive encouragement if doubters want it…not to be hyjacked with bulling corrupt religious liars…who claim to offer eternal afterlife etc etc ??? thats a fake lure and not a realistic offer….
    I would volunteer for the hotline if it wasn’t for the fact that so many nasty haters and idiots might phone up to disrupt it – Believers claim to be nice, good and kind etc etc…but it doesn’t take them long to show their true colours and their real intent if you go against them – Hypocritical nasty bullies….people like them are wolves in sheeps clothes – pure abusers – who want to cut off people from any help so its more difficult to leave the abuse….

  15. I respectfully disagree. I don’t think religious people, as a rule “voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research”, I don’t think most of them know how to think critically or research.
    These are people who basically belong to cults, they are raised to think that creationism is critical thinking and that we are making stuff up. They are raised to think that god is a known fact, and that those of us who don’t believe just deny. Seriously, how many people who “believe” in evolution actually critically thought about it, and how many just listened to what their teachers said. The difference is that when you do learn to critically think and you do learn to do research that things like evolution stand up, while god falls down (sorry for shifting to evolution, it’s what I know best).

    Assuming they are all vapid isn’t going to help anyone. I’d wager a good amount of them are highly intelligent, they just haven’t been taught to use that intelligence.

    Your evidence stands for almost everyone when it comes to things they do not understand. I sing the praises of Dr. Hawkings and Dr. Tyson. I’d love to see them verbally clobber a young earth creationist, but I don’t understand high level physics, I just trust that they are doing real science, and that their conclusions are the best ones we have so far. Somebody raised in a cult, who thinks something like creation science is critical thinking (they often flatter themselves as “skeptics”) praise their leaders for the same thing. They trust that they know more about creation “science” than they do, and so cheer a win. I doubt they ever learned what ad hominim means either.

    Calling a whole group of people sheeple is just as insulting as calling all atheists immoral. I am sure some are very well sheeple, but then there are such people on our side as well. By labeling a whole group you risk alienating closeted disbelievers. A religious elder can simply point and say “look, they call us names, they are immoral” and win. They can prove that we are immoral quite easily. They have a very different set of “morals” than we do.

    A percentage of stupid? I’d assume that their IQ’s (it’s all I can think to measure) bell curve like the rest of ours do. Humans learn very easily, unfortunately, if you are taught lies from early on then it is difficult to undo. If I were to label these followers as anything it would be as victims of life long brainwashing.

    Brainwashing can be undone. you can’t cure stupid.

    As for that Hovind Clip, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I want my son to be that awesome!
    Look, in the long run we are arguing over labels here, I think we agree on what is happening to these people. I have seen their sites though. There are those that call us names, and those that pray for us. I always consider my argument won when a person reverts to one of these defaults. I don’t like seeing us defaulting to name calling and insults. They are the lowest form of argument. We have logic and scientific facts on our side, there is no need to lower ourselves to name calling.

    • In reply to #45 by BigDyTerminator:

      I respectfully disagree. I don’t think religious people, as a rule “voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research”,

      I was not referring to “religious people in general”. I was referring to fundamentalists:- and particularly to fans WLC. You will however find many religious people show sheeple characteristics to some degree. It is in the nature of unevidenced “faith-thinking”.

      I don’t think most of them know how to think critically or research. These are people who basically belong to cults, they are raised to think that creationism is critical thinking and that we are making stuff up.

      Many think “logic” and “reasoning”, is throwing together a heap of words leading to the conclusion they or their cult, first thought of!
      You will frequently see a reversed image of their flawed thinking projected on to us, because that is the only way THEY know of thinking. Not being educated is unfortunate. “Knowing it all”, refusing to learn, and posing as an expert, is different!

      They are raised to think that god is a known fact, and that those of us who don’t believe just deny.

      That is the nature of cult indoctrination of children. Some really get a shock if they come here “to enlighten ignorant atheists about biblical history”!

      Your evidence stands for almost everyone when it comes to things they do not understand.

      The difference with educated people and scientists, is that they recognise that there are subject areas beyond their knowledge (It often motivates exploration) The “god-did-its” know ALL the answers! – and usually none of the questions!

      I sing the praises of Dr. Hawkings and Dr. Tyson. I’d love to see them verbally clobber a young earth creationist, but I don’t understand high level physics, I just trust that they are doing real science, and that their conclusions are the best ones we have so far.

      The difference is, that in science, other scientists will challenge mistaken or dishonest work. You are not just trusting the individuals, you are trusting the scientific process and peer review system. Likewise any scientists with dubious inclinations can expect to have critical eyes of fellow specialists scrutinising their work. There is a very considerable difference in the nature of the “trust” involved.

      Religinuts will often show dishonest, utterly lunatic, drivel, “respect” when it suits them, although history shows, they may well decide to fight wars over it instead!

      I’d love to see them verbally clobber a young earth creationist,

      You can watch on some archived videos, but it does not need this level of scientist. YECs are not much of a challenge. You can watch me or other RDnet posters demolish ones who turn up! (There are some examples in the archives)

      As for that Hovind Clip, AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

      Eric Hovind also has a fundie “sheeple” fan base, as had his jailed fraudster father before him!

      Perhaps if you look into some of these details, you will see why some of us use rhetoric and ridicule, on dishonest debaters, (and their adoring fans) who are not open to honest evidence or reasoning!

      • I agree with everything said here. I think I was letting my emotions get the best of me when I saw the ridicule. I still don’t agree with it (even though I slip all the time), but I see where you are coming from now. You aren’t labeling those who do want to change or learn to think critically, you are labeling those who truly are lemming like and would “drink the kool-aid” if it was ever offered.

        I shall have to check the archives! I admit, I am trying to hone my own skills as a debater. I lack natural written and verbal skills, but I know I can learn them by observation.

        I do also want to thank you for answering me civilly, it really is a change from most places I have been. Oddly enough, this and a knitting group are the two nicest places I have found.

        Have a lovely…whatever time it is where you are.

        In reply to #48 by Alan4discussion:

        In reply to #45 by BigDyTerminator:

        I respectfully disagree. I don’t think religious people, as a rule “voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research”,

        I was not referring to “religious people in general”. I was referring to fundamentalists:- and particularly to fans…

        • In reply to #50 by BigDyTerminator:

          You aren’t labeling those who do want to change or learn to think critically, you are labeling those who truly are lemming like and would “drink the kool-aid” if it was ever offered.

          I got a dressing down not that long ago for using that phrase…then again, many would call me a bit of a gobshite.

          If measured ridicule is good enough for big named Atheists and the great Atheist comedians, I’m fine with it…horses for courses I say, everyone to their own…sorry for the mixed metaphors and nice to see ya on here BTW.

    • In reply to #45 by BigDyTerminator:

      Calling a whole group of people sheeple is just as insulting as calling all atheists immoral. I am sure some are very well sheeple, but then there are such people on our side as well. By labeling a whole group you risk alienating closeted disbelievers. A religious elder can simply point and say “look, they call us names, they are immoral” and win. They can prove that we are immoral quite easily. They have a very different set of “morals” than we do.

      For what it’s worth, BigDyTerminator, I share your disdain for the sheeple insult.

      I don’t usually refer back to my own comments, as it seems a bit of an arrogant thing to do, but I voiced my antipathy a short while ago on this thread:

      Away with the fairies (with Polish translation),

      in this post, which was responded to here by Alan4Discussion; here by the lovely Michael Murray; here by the even lovelier Katy Cord… oh that’s me; and here, here and here.

      So basically between #82 and #102, if you’re interested in reading.

      I personally am quite persuaded by atheistengineer’s argument that some of our number would be well advised to check the label of their own clothing to see if it contains any sheepskin. Our beloved patron doesn’t post on his site anymore; but back when he used to, you should have seen the amount of likes he accumulated from the most innocuous of utterances.

      I’m not one to judge, but if it walks like a sheep, bleats like a sheep…

  16. Willy lame brain likes to move in the arena of pseudo philosophical syllogistic fallacies that lie on the periphery of human knowledge and perception of reality. Its a useful tactic to stay out of range of common human experience. Even he isn’t quite so stupid as to try to explain the metaphysical nonsense in his own religion. He should leave that to D’Souza he’s a much better bat shit peddlar.

  17. « Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig… », uh ???

    May I remind people (at large) that… there ** can’t be ** such thing as a ** christian ** philosopher ??

    Either you are a christian —i.e. a follower of a creed, OR you are a philosopher —someone who, as the word itself indicates, is a friend of wisdom ! You can’t be both at the same time.

    It’s like saying “a calvinist hedonist” ! Let’s remember : ** Philosophy asks questions… religions smash un-questionable “answers”. ** It looks pretty incompatible…. doesn’t it ?

Leave a Reply