There is a difference between my faith. Which I do not expect you to understand or care about and fact and science. When I present noble prize winners who state there is vidence our universe is designed and you all deny it without and counter to the scientists points... I see you all making emotional clown like reactions. Not one of you, has tried to explain why the scientists are wrong. My faith is not even involved in that conversation. its me present noble prize winners making statements.
Optional777, Since you bring up William Lane Craig, how do you respond to the Kalaam Cosmological Argument? I agree with you that Hitchens is a very weak debater. In my opinion, Hitchens and fellow atheists such as Harris, Dawkins etc are dwarfed by their 20th century and earlier predecessors, Russell, Kant, Hume and so on. I wish him well in his battle against cancer.
you do not understand the conversation. I really have no emotional triggers about my faith. I am just happy to have it I get ticked when clowns deny science... not cause I care about my faith but because, I care about the truth. Its why I have problems with people who forget how great a change Reagan made. Its why I care when people pretend lowering taxes did not allow govt revenue to rise. its why I spent the last year after learning the fact here on et.... why global warming kooks cant accept the fact that the ice core data shows that warming precedes CO2 accumulation by 800 years... Consequently there is no proof man is causing warming (or a sig factor) and finally, why is warming worse than cooling?
If I wanted to discuss something with Craig, I would read Craig and then discuss something with him. When people refer to "experts" on the issue...and the experts are not involved in the discussion, I see little point in debating someone else's argument really. If you could make an argument, I would debate your argument. The moment you have to quote someone else's argument, it shows that you don't own the argument yourself...
I wish everyone well in their battles with cancer. Hitchens and his arguments don't withstand the test of reason. He is clearly angry at religion, for a number of reasons that he generally doesn't delve into. Somehow, the atheist blame God for the actions of men who follow their own ideas of God. Makes more sense to blame the man, and not God...but me thinks they have enough of a belief in God to have an issue with God.
Interesting tick you have as well, man of who acts as an imposter of a god on other threads and yets seems to despise white christians so.
Non sequitur and red herring rolled into one. The issue is not over owning the argument, it is over the proposition put forth in the argument. You have analyzed Hitchen's argument. Why don't you do the same for one of WL Craig's main ones?
How can I have a reasonable discussion of an argument with someone who does not own the argument? I should argue or discuss your interpretation of someone else's argument? I have no opinion on Craig's argument...if you want to make an argument that you own, I'd be happy to discuss that. I've listened to Hitchens and his arguments many times, I've watched them, and I have found multiple logical fallacies and skewed assumptions in his arguments...as well as his emotionally bitter reaction to theists. I would love to discuss these things with Hitchens...if he were here.