Um, Graham.

<<…so perhaps you [McReal] could give us an example of how he has manipulated an argument.>>

I’ve already given an example of how Craig manipulates arguments. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9DLcTfYBcQ

So win or lose, it would be demeaning and an insult to debate such a person.

Here’s a clip of Dan Dennett explaining some of Craig’s sneaky tactics if you’re interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb10QvaHpS4

<<It seems equally implausible that things have always been without beginning as to say there must have been a beginning.>>

I agree and I suspect most non-believers would too. To assume that the opposing explanation must necessarily be that things have always just “been” would be a false dichotomy. It’s possible that it doesn’t even make sense to ask what came before the singularity.

It’s like you raise this point to soften the blow of Craig’s failed cosmological argument by pointing to a strawman and saying, “Well hey, your theory ain’t too crash hot either.”

But it’s not just that Craig’s cosmological argument is unconvincing, it actually fallacious.

AJ, checked your YouTube link and I think it is your guy who is running the deception, not Craig. His understanding of physics is tenuous, to say the least.

I think I know why Dawkins refuses to debate Craig, and that is because his case against religion is built on straw men, and he realises that if he comes up against someone with a sophisticated understanding of theology then it will undermine his whole status in the debate because his straw men will become apparent.

Better to refuse on the basis that his opponent is not worthy and to keep touring and talking to those who buy his straw men than to run the risk that his prestige will be damaged.

It's pretty poor form, but a common public relations strategy.

GrahanY,
I posted in the wrong thread - http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12756&page=0#220465

Are you able to move it to this one?

I like turtles.

No Graham, it’s actually not.

<<I think it is your guy who is running the deception, not Craig. His understanding of physics is tenuous, to say the least.>>

He’s an astronomer so he has a sound grasp of basic physics. Could you please point out for me where his deception and what about his understanding of physics is tenuous? Or where he is being deceptive for that matter?

I don’t think you can.

So what about Craig's misrepresentation of the arguments against his premise of the cosmological argument? You have nothing to say about that? Odd considering you claim there is no deception on Craig's behalf.

Or what of the fact that that Craig - a PhD in philosophy - conveniently forgot about the concept of “I”?

You’re pretty silent on that too.

Simply asserting that the author of the video’s understanding of physics is “tenuous” doesn’t address any of this. It’s merely a diversion used to plant a seed of doubt in the minds of those who might view it - regardless of whether nor not it's true.

It's pretty poor form, but a common strategy used by laywers.

Popular atheism is dreadful when judged by philosophical standards.

As Madeleine shows, the goal of their writing isn’t to speak to theists, but to redefine atheism from being the quiet, live-and-let-live, intellectual, blue blood, male college professor enterprise that it has tended to be among English speakers to being a socially active and aggressive force that actively marginalizes others.

This is why they are raising so many social questions of manners, morals, and child rearing e.g. “is it child abuse to raise children in religious households?” or “should we allow any tolerance to public teaching of religious things?” or “Sure, Christianity is wrong, but should we respect Christians?”

This is why they must afford no intellectual respect to theism of any kind e.g caricaturing Craig as a Creationist – the whole point of their enterprise is to make Christianity (something like) the new racism, something that popular manners deems unworthy of respect since it can only be practised by the ignorant and dangerous. Racist attitudes weren't changed by reasoning with racists or by faithfully taking up and refuting their arguments, but by changing public manners and morals to recast the racist as an ignorant rube who deserved no intellectual respect.

The NA is the thin end of the wedge for a change in manners and morals, leading to new taboos. It doesn’t direct itself to converting classically trained philosophers, but to being for mass consumption to float “in the air” and change attitudes among cafeteria Catholics, the overwhelming percentage of teens who leave the faith to experiment, people who are bored with the vacuity of MegaChurches, etc. Previous to this, such people would just be mediocre Christians all their lives, since atheism was for white, unmarried, males who keep to themselves (as it still largely is).

If the NA succeeds in their actual goal, all that will change. Theism will become the new racism. Judged by demagogic rather than philosophical standards they are more effective.

Madeleine in your capacity for independent thought if you represent even a minority of young people I have newfound faith in humanity. Thank you.