- 516 cards turned in
- 286 Dr. Craig made the clearer/better presentation
- 130 Dr. Krauss made the clearer/better presentation
- 100 stated it was a draw
According to that data, a majority of the people who watched the debate in situ considered that Craig won it, which is the conclusion (I think) of any sane, objective and rational person. Honestly, it's astonishing to see that 130 persons (atheists, I must think) considered that Krauss made a better/clearer presentation. I'm shocked by it. Amazing.
It's astonishing to realize that there is people who cannot, intellectually, concede defeat. People like that are not emotionally prepared to intellectual debate and the search for the truth. They have an emotional commitment to their own opinions, and it is almost impossible to make them to realize they have been wrong.
I consider this a kind of intellectual disease.
AN EXEMPLE OF ATHEISTIC IRRATIONALISM AND STUPIDITY:
One of the most dissapointings things about public debates is, sometimes, the Q/A part. I've been shocked by the intellectual lazyness, ignorance, confusion and irrationality of some questioners, specially the atheistic ones.
An example of this kind of stupidity is the question by this atheist in the Craig vs. Harris debate. Please, examine carefully the following video, specially the question posed to Craig:
It's astonishing to realize that there is people who cannot, intellectually, concede defeat. People like that are not emotionally prepared to intellectual debate and the search for the truth. They have an emotional commitment to their own opinions, and it is almost impossible to make them to realize they have been wrong.
I consider this a kind of intellectual disease.
AN EXEMPLE OF ATHEISTIC IRRATIONALISM AND STUPIDITY:
One of the most dissapointings things about public debates is, sometimes, the Q/A part. I've been shocked by the intellectual lazyness, ignorance, confusion and irrationality of some questioners, specially the atheistic ones.
An example of this kind of stupidity is the question by this atheist in the Craig vs. Harris debate. Please, examine carefully the following video, specially the question posed to Craig:
Note carefully the questioner's "Two questions":
-Is the statement "God exists" an IS statement or an ought statement? (Obviously, the answer is it's an IS STATEMENT; so the question itself is already stupid and inept).
But the second question is a masterpiece of atheist irrationality and it's evidence of the intellectual level of many atheists in colleges:
-So you cannot derive any objective duty from it?
Oh boy.... This atheist (like many others) is intellectually incapable to understand that in Craig's argument, objective moral duties came from God, not from the statement "God exists".
Note that in this point it's irrelevant if Craig is right or not. It's irrelevant if God exists or not. It's irrelevant if atheism is true or not. What is of my interest in this moment is the atheist's stupidy, solid irrationality and intellectual weakness.
If you have not understood the point yet, perhaps the following analogy will help:
When a court of law condemms you to something, let's to say "You must pay 100$ to X person", it's obvious that such prescription or legal duty came from the court/judge (as a legally valid and competent authority) NOT from the statement "courts exist". Even the most irrational, retarded and mentally impaired person would know and fully understand that.
Likewise, according to Craig, if God exists (i.e if a being of supreme cosmic intelligence, power and absolute ontological authority over creation exists), then objective moral duties exist. Such duties come from God, not from the statement or proposition "God exists". Is so hard to understand that? Do you need to be a genius in order to understand Craig's argument? Obviously not, any person, even the most stupid and ignorant one, would understand it (regardless of whether such person agrees or disagrees with Craig). The only people who cannot intellectually understand this obvious point are some atheists like the guy in the video, because they have a flawed cognitive functioning, their mind is not rational anymore, and even the most basic arguments or ideas are far beyond of their understanding and intelligence.
The atheist of the video conflates the PERSON of God with the STATEMENT "God exists".
I think that Craig's was surprised and caught off guard by such monumentally inept and stupid question, because he replied "Not from that alone", when his reply should have been "You're conflating commands that come from the person or authority called God (which is my argument), with commands that come from the statement "God exists". Obviously a person is not the same than an statement, and the duties come from the former, not from the latter, because duties (legal, moral, etc.) only come from competent personal authorities, not from statements, propositions or concepts which are abstract objects, not persons. So you're right that I cannot derive objective duties from the statement "God exists", and I've never pretented to do it".
To be honest, If I (Jime) were asked to stupid question in a public debate, perhaps I'd refuse to answer to it. My reply would be "Next!!!!!!!".
The reason is that answering to such ridiculous question forces you into the same level of mediocrity, stupidity and intellectual incapacity of the individual asking such idiocy.
I'm fascinated by and have dedicated some of my time to the study of the psychology of hard-core materialistic atheists, naturalists and pseudoskeptics; but at the same time, I feel sad that young people have been destroyed in their rational and intellectual faculties by the metaphysical naturalist and materialist ideology. They have reached a point of not return.
In my opinion, one of the worst consequences of a consistent naturalism (in addition to its moral poverty and the dangers it poses to society) is that it is a strong threat to the sanity and rationality of individuals.
This is another reason why we have to avoid that metaphysical naturalism takes control over society. We have to fight it (with intellectual means) and expose (with sound evidence and arguments) the moral and intellectual dangers that a fully consistent metaphysical naturalism entail.
And a good line of evidence for this position is precisely showing the intellectual effects that such ideology causes in young people, specially in college, like the guy in the video.
-Is the statement "God exists" an IS statement or an ought statement? (Obviously, the answer is it's an IS STATEMENT; so the question itself is already stupid and inept).
But the second question is a masterpiece of atheist irrationality and it's evidence of the intellectual level of many atheists in colleges:
-So you cannot derive any objective duty from it?
Oh boy.... This atheist (like many others) is intellectually incapable to understand that in Craig's argument, objective moral duties came from God, not from the statement "God exists".
Note that in this point it's irrelevant if Craig is right or not. It's irrelevant if God exists or not. It's irrelevant if atheism is true or not. What is of my interest in this moment is the atheist's stupidy, solid irrationality and intellectual weakness.
If you have not understood the point yet, perhaps the following analogy will help:
When a court of law condemms you to something, let's to say "You must pay 100$ to X person", it's obvious that such prescription or legal duty came from the court/judge (as a legally valid and competent authority) NOT from the statement "courts exist". Even the most irrational, retarded and mentally impaired person would know and fully understand that.
Likewise, according to Craig, if God exists (i.e if a being of supreme cosmic intelligence, power and absolute ontological authority over creation exists), then objective moral duties exist. Such duties come from God, not from the statement or proposition "God exists". Is so hard to understand that? Do you need to be a genius in order to understand Craig's argument? Obviously not, any person, even the most stupid and ignorant one, would understand it (regardless of whether such person agrees or disagrees with Craig). The only people who cannot intellectually understand this obvious point are some atheists like the guy in the video, because they have a flawed cognitive functioning, their mind is not rational anymore, and even the most basic arguments or ideas are far beyond of their understanding and intelligence.
The atheist of the video conflates the PERSON of God with the STATEMENT "God exists".
I think that Craig's was surprised and caught off guard by such monumentally inept and stupid question, because he replied "Not from that alone", when his reply should have been "You're conflating commands that come from the person or authority called God (which is my argument), with commands that come from the statement "God exists". Obviously a person is not the same than an statement, and the duties come from the former, not from the latter, because duties (legal, moral, etc.) only come from competent personal authorities, not from statements, propositions or concepts which are abstract objects, not persons. So you're right that I cannot derive objective duties from the statement "God exists", and I've never pretented to do it".
To be honest, If I (Jime) were asked to stupid question in a public debate, perhaps I'd refuse to answer to it. My reply would be "Next!!!!!!!".
The reason is that answering to such ridiculous question forces you into the same level of mediocrity, stupidity and intellectual incapacity of the individual asking such idiocy.
I'm fascinated by and have dedicated some of my time to the study of the psychology of hard-core materialistic atheists, naturalists and pseudoskeptics; but at the same time, I feel sad that young people have been destroyed in their rational and intellectual faculties by the metaphysical naturalist and materialist ideology. They have reached a point of not return.
In my opinion, one of the worst consequences of a consistent naturalism (in addition to its moral poverty and the dangers it poses to society) is that it is a strong threat to the sanity and rationality of individuals.
This is another reason why we have to avoid that metaphysical naturalism takes control over society. We have to fight it (with intellectual means) and expose (with sound evidence and arguments) the moral and intellectual dangers that a fully consistent metaphysical naturalism entail.
And a good line of evidence for this position is precisely showing the intellectual effects that such ideology causes in young people, specially in college, like the guy in the video.
0 comments:
Post a Comment