All posts by Wintery Knight

https://winteryknight.com/
Podcasts

William Lane Craig discusses his panel debate with atheist Richard Dawkins

6 Comments

Justin Brierley’s latest Unbelievable show features William Lane Craig discussing the 3-on-3 debate with Richard Dawkins that occured in Mexico.

Details:

William Lane Craig is a philosopher, author and key defender of the Christian faith in debates around the world.

Although atheist Richard Dawkins had publicly said he will not debate Craig, he found himself on the same platform as him in November 2010.  Dawkins was on an atheist team, Craig on a theist team as they debated “Does the Universe have a purpose?” at a Mexico TED-style event.

With extracts from the debate, William (Bill) Lane Craig chats to Justin about the circumstances of their encounter and why he believes Dawkins and the atheist team changed their tactics mid way, were ununified and failed to address the arguments that were presented.

To watch the full debate http://www.premiercommunity.org.uk/group/unbelievable/forum/topics/richard-dawkins-just-broke-his

The MP3 file is here.

Summary:

  • who organized the conference?
  • why was Craig invited to the event?
  • how did Dawkins get involved?
  • what happened when Craig and Dawkins met in the lobby?
  • what did Craig think of format of the debate?
  • clips of Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig
  • how the no-purpose side changed strategies in the debate
  • what did Dawkins lecture on the day before the debate?
  • how should Christians respond to the popularity of Dawkins?
  • how did Dawkins respond to Bill Craig’s arguments?
  • what does Dawkins think about the “Why” questions of life?
  • how did Dawkins respond to the kalam and fine-tuning arguments?
  • is there anything wrong with Dawkins’ epistemology?
  • what arguments were presented by each side?
  • which side’s case is rooted in emotion and wishing?

Here’s a clip showing some of the more memorable parts:

It turns out that Michael Shermer spoke up to the conference organizers to get Craig invited to the event. I have always had a good opinion of Shermer personally, and this just cements it. Shermer is an uncommonly fair atheist. He has no problem hearing from the other side. You can read a transcript of his debate with Greg Koukl, moderated by national radio show hose Hugh Hewitt.

I would like to see Richard Dawkins debate William Lane Craig one-on-one. I think it is interesting that Dawkins avoids debating Craig even though Hitchens has debated Craig and Sam Harris WILL BE debating Craig shortly. Why do so many atheists believe in Dawkins when he will not debate.

News

Are people on the political left more civil than those on the right?

6 Comments

Gateway Pundit finds that the ultra-leftist Daily Kos web site put a bulls-eye on Gabriell Giffords for being too conservative.

The Daily Kos post says:

Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

[…]Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can’t save their jobs, they’ll pay more attention to those who can.

p.s. Four Blue Dogs voted to protect the Constitution — Baron Hill (IN-09), Mike Michaud (ME-02), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), and Mike Thompson (CA-01). They apparently realized that being supposed “moderates” didn’t necessitate selling out to Constitution for George Bush’s imperial presidency.

Guess whose name appears in bold in the list of people with bulls-eyes on their districts? Gabrielle Giffords.

A screenshot of the original post is here. I expect it will be pulled soon, like the other Daily Kos post about Gabrielle Giffords being “dead” to the author after voting against Nancy Pelosi.

What about target maps?

Liberty Pundits found that the Democrats also use maps with targets on them.

This is spite of the fact that Paul Krugman says that the left never uses maps with targets on them. (H/T Nice Deb)

In the past, have people on the left been civil?

Consider this post from Michelle Malkin that is a HUGE collection of tons of hateful, threatening and/or violent things that the left has done in the last 10 years. (H/T Mary)

Here’s the table of contents of the post:

  • I. PALIN HATE
  • II. BUSH HATE
  • III. MISC. TEA PARTY/GOP/ANTI-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE HATE
  • IV. ANTI-CONSERVATIVE FEMALE HATE
  • V. LEFT-WING MOB HATE — campus, anti-war radicals, ACORN, eco-extremists, & unions
  • VI. OPEN-BORDERS HATE
  • VII. ANTI-MILITARY HATE
  • VIII. HATE: CRIMES — the ever-growing Unhinged Mugshot Collection

I caution you about looking at Michelle’s post, although I would call it a must-read if you can handle it. It is all death threats, vulgarity and vitriol from top to bottom. I am talking about guns pointed at the heads of Sarah Palin and George W. Bush, violence, fake blood, signs with death threats. Really sick stuff.

What about Obama? Isn’t he civil?

And more from the Blog Prof.

Excerpt:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama in July 2008

“We’re gonna punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.” Obama to Latinos, October 2010

“I think it’s tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed,” Obama on keeping taxes from increasing, December 6, 2010

“A Republican majority in Congress would mean “hand-to-hand combat” on Capitol Hill for the next two years, threatening policies Democrats have enacted to stabilize the economy,” Obama, October 6, 2010

“Here’s the problem: It’s almost like they’ve got — they’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger. You don’t want them to blow up. But you’ve got to kind of talk them, ease that finger off the trigger.”  Obama on banks, March 2009

“I want you to argue with them and get in their face!” Barack Obama, September 2008

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!” Obama on ACORN Mobs, March 2010

“We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“ Obama on the private sector, June 2010

Do you ever remember Bush using rhetoric like that? Me neither. Because he wasn’t that kind of guy.

Related posts

News

Obama administration replaces mother/father with parent 1/2 on passport application

6 Comments

Story from Fox News. (H/T Dad and Mary)

Excerpt:

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. “They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’”

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn’t note if it was for child applications only.

[…]Gay rights groups are applauding the decision.

“Changing the term mother and father to the more global term of parent allows many different types of families to be able to go and apply for a passport for their child without feeling like the government doesn’t recognize their family,” said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director of Family Equality Council.

Her organization lobbied the government for several years to remove the words from passport applications.

“Our government needs to recognize that the family structure is changing,” Chrisler said. “The best thing that we can do is support people who are raising kids in loving, stable families.”

[…]Chrisler recounted the day she and her female partner tried to get her twin sons passports.

“Even though my partner was their legal mother, had adopted them after I gave birth to them, she still had to put her name in the father field, and that is both discriminatory and makes us feel like second-class citizens,” she said.

Democrats don’t believe in family or marriage. That’s why they push same-sex marriage and oppose the Defense of Marriage Act. They don’t believe that children should grow up with mothers and fathers. They believe that children are chattel to be shifted around based on the whims of selfish, sex-obsessed adults. They don’t care what the children want or what is best for them – they just need to buy the votes of people who want to be free from moral obligations to children. They think that parents should be ignored and pushed aside (except to work and pay taxes) so that the expert teachers can push sensible secular leftist views onto the children – especially sex education. And they would like this extended to earlier and earlier ages. That is assuming that children are allowed to be born at all – the abortion rate in Democrat strongholds like New York is near 40%. About 40% of all pregnancies in New York end in deliberate abortions.

Why is the family disintegrating in America? Because Democrats are actively undermining them.