Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Keith Pinster on March 9, 2011 at 10:38am

The reason their brain goes dormant "when religion is around" is because religion works on an emotional level.  So, religious people tend to learn that any time their emotions come into play, they get to make emotional decisions and then they need to ignore any evidence to the contrary and exploit any evidence (even if it is supposition, and even if they have to twist it around so it's no longer even true) in support of their deluded hypothesis.  They are otherwise "smart" because when emotions are not involved, they can think logically.  But any time emotions are involved, that logical thought process goes right out the window.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on January 29, 2011 at 7:46pm

I think YEC's are stupid.  But all Christians?  No I don't think so.  Some of them are brilliant but never question their upbringing and justify their beliefs with stupid rationalizations ... like John Lennox.  He really is a sad case. An Oxford mathematician you can find debating Dawkins , Hitchens and Shermer on the existence of God.  There are many others like him as well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Amelia on January 29, 2011 at 7:56pm

Creationists just annoy me.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on January 30, 2011 at 10:40am

Not all YECs are stupid, some are very intelligent!

 

I dont like John Lennox, he is a bad theologian...

 

But Dawkins and Hitchens are weak debaters! They are not philosophers! William Craig refutes more of their arguments in a single sentence...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on January 30, 2011 at 11:23am

......

 

William Craig?  LoL.  You're a funny man Adam.  =)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reg The Fronkey Farmer on January 30, 2011 at 2:13pm

As in William Lane Craig ?? You gotta joking Adam.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adam Weber on January 30, 2011 at 8:18pm

Yes, when it comes to philosophy; he can refute Dawkins, Hitchens etc.

I am not a fan of Lennox his theology is horrible and understanding of Genesis is so psudeo-academical he should be ashamed of what he believes.

Dr Craig is a good philosopher.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on January 30, 2011 at 2:52pm

I can't tell if any of them are intelligent for certain because, if they have any intelligence, their insanity masks it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by justin gold on January 30, 2011 at 9:02pm

The problem William lane Craig has got is that he's lost before he even opens his mouth.Bullshit just doesn't stand up.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bill on January 31, 2011 at 12:21pm

William Craig is an excellent example of a Christian who is obviously not stupid, but instead is ignorant and wrong. His 'refutations' of Dawkins and Hitchens are based solely on persuasion and not on reason. You are right, he is an excellent debater who is adept at slipping logical fallacies into the debate that often go undetected by the casual listener. Craig is a good debater, but he is a poor philosopher. This stems from the fact that his most fundamental premises are wrong. He clings to these mistakes they lead him to reject fundamental knowledge about how the universe works, and leave him in a state of profound ignorance. Dawkins and Hitchens are far better philosophers, even though their degrees are technically in other subjects. Did you know that every PHD is in fact a philosopher, that it actually stands for 'Doctorate of Philosophy'?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by T A A on February 27, 2011 at 10:30pm

[...] Did you know that every PHD is in fact a philosopher, that it actually stands for 'Doctorate of Philosophy .

 

talk about weak argument! the reason they're named that way is because any form of research used to be called philosophy, it had nothing to do with today's limited definition of philosophy!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on January 29, 2011 at 8:46pm

I don't think this is true at all.  I see people with degrees as someone who is able to do homework and remember a bunch of facts and pass some tests.  It says nothing as to if they are intelligent or not.  You also don't need to be a scientist or have a degree to understand what empiricism is.  And why are you calling his followers 'pseudo-atheists'?  I'm a bit confused with about every point you made in your post.  Is it just me?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page