The Prof. Craig-Mr. Hitchens Debate, 8.4 MN views. Who iyo won and why?

[Xavier]

So Prof. Craig and Mr. Hitchens had a Debate on Christianity vs Atheism at Biola University some years ago. I give credit to Hitchens for showing up for the debate, unlike Mr. Dawkins who apparently was too afraid to debate his views on the subject at the time. That being said, however, even fellow Atheists thought Hitchens lost and badly lost the Debate to Prof. Craig.

For e.g. a website called "Common Sense Atheism", which apparently thinks Atheism is just "Common Sense", nonetheless admitted: "I also came across this colorful and evenhanded account from a blog called Common Sense Atheism.

"I just returned from the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University. It was a bigger deal than I realized. Over 3,000 people were there, and groups from dozens of countries – including Sri Lanka, apparently – had purchased a live feed. I did record audio of the debate, but the quality is too poor to post.
Of three recent Craig debates, I was most looking forward to his matchup with Morriston, which has yet to be posted online. I was somewhat excited for his debate with Carrier, which was disappointing. I was least excited for this debate with Hitchens, but it was the only one in my area, so I went.
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." https://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/04...ns-debate/

Video of the Debate below: Hitchens also claimed during the debate: "There's no statement I know how to make that claims "Atheism is true" because Atheism is the position that a certain proposition isn't true". This doesn't follow and is a non sequitur. If P is the statement: "It is raining outside", and Q is the proposition that P isn't true, then Q is most certainly the position that "It is not raining outside" and therefore most certainly has a Truth Value of its own, namely the opposite Truth Value. Surprised Prof. Craig didn't call him out on that, but other than that, it was a very good debate. Do share your thoughts. God Bless.

[Inkubus]

Yeah, Hitch was pisst. Daft sod.

Other than that what do you have for us today troll?

[AutisticWill]

...

... Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. ...

Video of the Debate below: Hitchens also claimed during the debate: "There's no statement I know how to make that claims "Atheism is true" because Atheism is the position that a certain proposition isn't true". This doesn't follow and is a non sequitur. If P is the statement: "It is raining outside", and Q is the proposition that P isn't true, then Q is most certainly the position that "It is not raining outside" and therefore most certainly has a Truth Value of its own, namely the opposite Truth Value. Surprised Prof. Craig didn't call him out on that, but other than that, it was a very good debate.

The live-debate format is one of the worst in which to explore complex topics.

An email exchange that they latter joint published would have been better.

Therefore, I'm not even going to watch this. I'll just assume that Hitchens lost -- it doesn't make you in the right!

Did you even watch any of the videos I sent you in the Kalam thread?

Something just as silly as a live debate, but PACKED with accurate info [thanks entirely to the guest]:



it's a barrel of chuckles!

[Deesse23]

Doesnt matter who won. Only matters who was correct. You fail, yet again, before leaving the starting line.

[Dānu]

And?

[brewerb]

Do share your thoughts. God Bless.

I'd like to know about your fear of transitioning and/or being outed in the christian community. It can't be a pleasant way to live.

[Dānu]

What is your current total of God points earned across all your activities here?

[Deesse23]

Do share your thoughts. God Bless.

How many people did you convert, here or over at AF? Isnt your god a bit embarrassed to send such an uninformed representative of his terrible ideas?

[Szuchow]

Do share your thoughts. God Bless.

How many people did you convert, here or over at AF? Isnt your god a bit embarrassed to send such an uninformed representative of his terrible ideas?

It's hard to embarrass mythological being.

[Xavier]

Danu: God points? What's that? Chapter and verse? I was playing Hero Wars some time back, and there are plenty of points to be gained in that game. With God, it's not about gaining points but about witnessing to the Truth, with arguments and evidences. It's the Truth that sets people free, as they become genuinely convinced of it. If they remain unconvinced, fine, that's up to them.

Brewer: sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not trans. I was born male, and I'm still a man. I'm going to get married next month, to the woman I love, and I have no intention of becoming a woman myself.

This is from Case for Christ by Lee Strobel: "In The Case for Christ, Lee Strobel recounts how, as a moderator of a debate between William Lane Craig and an atheist selected by the national spokesperson for the American Atheists Inc., he marvelled as Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling arguments for atheism ... In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics or sceptics, an overwhelming 82 per cent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty-seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians – Craig’s arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist."

Regarding the Debate, it would have been nice if (1) there had been an audience poll at the beginning of the Debate, to see how many were (i) Christian (ii) Atheist (iii) undecided and if it was say 60-20-20 with a (2) similar audience poll at the end of the Debate, to see how many changed their minds. I think email Debates, like we're effectively having here, are fine, but face to face debates are also good and have their place. 

Also, the five-pronged approach Prof. Craig takes, like St. Thomas Aquinas did before him in his Five Ways, helps answer one of Deese's questions on the other thread - how one arrives at certainty regarding God's Existence. If you have 5 independent arguments/demonstrations/evidences/proofs of God's Existence, each of which by themselves show God's Existence is even 60-40 more likely than His non-existence, then because Atheism requires all 5 of those to be wrong, you'd arrive at something like 99% certainty based on those 5 arguments. Atheism, to try and defeat that, needs some good arguments of its own saying, "here are 3 or 4 if not 5 reasons to think Atheism is true". Needless to say, Hitchens didn't get around to that, claiming one could not even formulate a proposition that says Atheism is true, just because Atheism is the proposition that a certain proposition isn't true. Non sequitur.

Also, an Email Debate almost certainly wouldnt have 8.5 MN views, like this one does on Youtube. Most people would rather hear two opposing speakers present their views than read pages of written material. That's just the way it is.

[brewerb]

Brewer: sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not trans. I was born male, and I'm still a man. I'm going to get married next month, to the woman I love, and I have no intention of becoming a woman myself.

You found a beard, good for you. Does she know she's a beard?

You can be XY yet hold aspirations of becoming/living as XX.

[SYZ]

So Prof. Craig and Mr. Hitchens had a Debate on Christianity vs Atheism at Biola University some years ago. I give credit to Hitchens for showing up for the debate, unlike Mr. Dawkins who apparently was too afraid to debate his views on the subject at the time. That being said, however, even fellow Atheists thought Hitchens lost and badly lost the Debate to Prof. Craig.

For e.g. a website called "Common Sense Atheism", which apparently thinks Atheism is just "Common Sense", nonetheless admitted: "I also came across this colorful and evenhanded account from a blog called Common Sense Atheism.

"I just returned from the debate between William Lane Craig and Christopher Hitchens at Biola University. It was a bigger deal than I realized. Over 3,000 people were there, and groups from dozens of countries – including Sri Lanka, apparently – had purchased a live feed. I did record audio of the debate, but the quality is too poor to post.
Of three recent Craig debates, I was most looking forward to his matchup with Morriston, which has yet to be posted online. I was somewhat excited for his debate with Carrier, which was disappointing. I was least excited for this debate with Hitchens, but it was the only one in my area, so I went.
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." https://greatcloud.wordpress.com/2009/04...ns-debate/

Video of the Debate below: Hitchens also claimed during the debate: "There's no statement I know how to make that claims "Atheism is true" because Atheism is the position that a certain proposition isn't true". This doesn't follow and is a non sequitur. If P is the statement: "It is raining outside", and Q is the proposition that P isn't true, then Q is most certainly the position that "It is not raining outside" and therefore most certainly has a Truth Value of its own, namely the opposite Truth Value. Surprised Prof. Craig didn't call him out on that, but other than that, it was a very good debate. Do share your thoughts. God Bless.

[Dānu]

Debates don't determine truth. There's a reason Christians debate. It's misleading. It's not probative.

[Xavier]

Lol. Is that why virtually every Democracy has Presidential Debates, or something similar, before choosing/electing a Candidate? Debates are certainly a way to arrive at the Truth or make an informed choice/decision. I watched the DeSantis/Newsom Debate, and even Liberals generally agreed Newsom handily lost that debate. Many people fled California for Florida too, voting with their feet against Newsom and for DeSantis' policies. And while I'm critical of Trump, and he should have showed up in the Primary Debates, which he didn't, at least he debated Biden well, and Biden's defeat probably had something to do with him dropping out. Let's see how Trump-Vance do against Harris-Walz respectively. Debates matter. Religious Freedom is good, but for it to be fully meaningful, people should have complete data/information, after hearing qualified representatives from both sides, to make an informed decision.

Also, if we consider Christianity-Atheism globally, it's something like 34% to 2%. If we throw in the Agnostics, we get something like 5%. If we consider Abrahamic Religions together, versus even all the Irreligious, it's like 60% to 8 to 10%. Most politicians would love to have numbers like that in their favour, and those on the lower end would concede their defeat. And all that is inspite of the fact that there is persecution in various places, which doesn't allow for full Religious Freedom and the complete informed decision it allows. Also, people in like Africa, China etc may not easily be able to access information like those available in these Debates to us. Also because of linguistic issues, and some may not speak English etc. All in all, it augurs well for Christianity that its able to win in debates like these.

[Dānu]

So if a Christian loses a debate, that means Christianity is false? Don't be an idiot.

[Xavier]

It could mean the points were not well argued for. Dr. Craig uses mostly the 5 same Arguments, with maybe slight variations, in most of his debates. That's usually enough to win, as most Atheists can't/don't rebut them and give "here are 4 or 5 reasons to think Atheism is true" of their own.

[Xavier]

"Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation. If so, they are naïve. Over the last generation there has been a revival of interest among professional philosophers, whose business it is to think about difficult metaphysical questions, in arguments for the existence of God. This resurgence of interest has not escaped the notice of even popular culture. In 1980 Time ran a major story entitled “Modernizing the Case for God,” which described the movement among contemporary philosophers to refurbish the traditional arguments for God’s existence. Time marveled,

In a quiet revolution in thought and argument that hardly anybody could have foreseen only two decades ago, God is making a comeback. Most intriguingly, this is happening not among theologians or ordinary believers, but in the crisp intellectual circles of academic philosophers, where the consensus had long banished the Almighty from fruitful discourse. [1]

[According to the article, the noted American philosopher Roderick Chisholm opined that the reason atheism was so influential in the previous generation is that the brightest philosophers were atheists; but today, he observes, many of the brightest philosophers are theists, using a tough-minded intellectualism in defense of that belief."

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings...ts-for-god

Since "The Philosophy of One Generation is the Common Sense of the next", things look pretty good for the future of Christianity.

[brewerb]

So if a Christian loses a debate, that means Christianity is false?  Don't be an idiot.

I'm not sure there is another option.

[Minimalist]

Xtianity is false, regardless.

As H.L. Mencken noted.

There is no possibility whatsoever of reconciling science and theology, at least in Christendom. Either Jesus arose from the dead or He didn't. If he did, then Christianity becomes plausible; if He did not, then it is sheer nonsense.

He didn't...and all of the pious whining of con men like Craig will not change that.

[jerry mcmasters]

I guess nothing is impossible but the idea of a big giant invisible magical personality out there watching us, judging us. It's dumb. So much more honest to just say fuck no one knows what any of this shit is about.

[Astreja]

Do share your thoughts.

Share my thoughts?  Okay!

I think you're a deluded, hateful, mendacious troll who needs a new hobby, like a 10-year vow of silence, because you can't even follow the commandments of the religion you're promoting.  I would not bother to micturate upon you if you were in a state of combustion -

- Oh, thoughts about the debate?  Drunk Hitchens > Sober Craig, because Craig believes idiotic crap and no amount of debating can make Craig's delusions true.

[SaxonX]

Debates don't resolve anything so so regardless of who won it changes nothing about who is right

[Minimalist]

If I had to listen to WLC for more than a minute a few drinks would  surely help.

[Deesse23]

It could mean the points were not well argued for. Dr. Craig uses mostly the 5 same Arguments, with maybe slight variations, in most of his debates.

Yeah, thats the problem with him. His arguments get refuted, over and over, and he then pretends that nothing happened and is presenting them again. Thats probably why he never had more than 5 arguments in total, and never will. He is very similar to you, or vice versa, which is not surprising, since (iirc) he seems to be a role model to you.

[Deesse23]

"Perhaps the New Atheists think that the traditional arguments for God’s existence are now passé and so no longer need refutation.

Do they? Well, that must be the reason why all your threads are so vacant of responses, right? Its also pathetic that people like you think they can argue their god into existence, really pathetic.