8 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

Issues of the film

THE UNBELIEVERS -a film

The film by Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss adresses many questions between religious and Atheist belivers. This is a discussion of that film.

Here is a discussion to start things off.

[johnross47]

"Shallow boring and narcissistic"....W L Craig sums himself up in four words.

[shadowhawk]

Beside calling people names, what do you think of the film? Perhaps I missed something and you are harshly describing the film, not craig. Why?.

Edited by shadowhawk, 27 June 2013 - 09:30 PM.

[N.T.M.]

"Shallow boring and narcissistic"....W L Craig sums himself up in four words.

Well put.

WLC has discredited himself to an irreparable extent. Watching his debates has conditioned me to not be able to take anything he says seriously.

[shadowhawk]

"Shallow boring and narcissistic"....W L Craig sums himself up in four words.

Well put.

WLC has discredited himself to an irreparable extent. Watching his debates has conditioned me to not be able to take anything he says seriously.

And this is your example of a logical argument? Nothing more than name calling from someone who claims airtight logic.

[N.T.M.]

"Shallow boring and narcissistic"....W L Craig sums himself up in four words.

Well put.

WLC has discredited himself to an irreparable extent. Watching his debates has conditioned me to not be able to take anything he says seriously.

And this is your example of a logical argument? Nothing more than name calling from someone who claims airtight logic.

No, of course not. My comment was just a criticism, for which I didn't cite any reasoning. That being said, I do have my reasons. After having watched many (many many many) of WLC's debates, I've found that his arguments are generally centered on non sequiturs, but they're presented with such confidence and intellectual veneer as to be--somehow--compelling. To be honest, I'm not sure that he actually believes what he claims to support.

[shadowhawk]

Again, no content bit just name calling. Why does this always happen?

[N.T.M.]

Again, no content bit just name calling. Why does this always happen?

Me: I'll preface what I'm going to say by saying that it has no content.

You: There's no content in your post.

I'm curious if you read what others type at all. I suppose in my position now I should say something like, "You're saying that I'm calling names." Obviously my giving you this information is of incredible benefit.

Again, simply fascinating.

[shadowhawk]

Again, no content bit just name calling. Why does this always happen?

Me: I'll preface what I'm going to say by saying that it has no content.

You: There's no content in your post.

I'm curious if you read what others type at all. I suppose in my position now I should say something like, "You're saying that I'm calling names." Obviously my giving you this information is of incredible benefit.

Again, simply fascinating.

You admitted there is no content and there isn't now.