William Lain Craig and Alister McGrath are both wonderful well read speakers who know their subject. The moronic comments below come from those who seem unable to 'think' but prefer to denigrate those who think deeply about topics that they refuse to understand out of ignorance and ego. Hopefully one day they will all come to their senses.
In my view and experience, what Alister McGrath speaks here, could hardly be stated more succinctly, more profoundly, more powerfully, and more poignantly.
I read a lot of comments to these sort of presentations. What I see from skeptics is a lot of name calling and assumptions masquerading as science. What I never see are reasonable answers to the truth claims presented in the videos. I mean, look at Jesus F. Christ's post and Bart B. Van Bockstaele's post. Is there anything at all except mud slinging and unsupported metaphysical presupposition there?
I think you are talking about answers you like, not reasonable answers. For example (33:24) when McGrath says that "Richard Dawkins says he is a tyrant. One answer might be that Richard Dawkins is talking about a god he has invented, rather than a god Christians actually know." McGrath is attempting to discredit Richard Dawkins' opinion, but he had already invalidated that opinion (33:00) with his claim that "the idea that we find in the old testament in psalm 23 is that of a god who journeys with us". You can't have it both ways. If you accept McGrath's claim, you also have to accept all the unnamable horrors this god is claimed to be responsible for by that very same old testament, The picture you then get, is that of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong, Stalin and Lenin and so many other people: they are comforting only to their followers and only for as long as they remain followers. McGrath can only get away with his claim of "a god christians actually know" in contrast with Richard Dawkins' tyrant, if these christians choose to cherry pick their old testament (and the new one as well, actually) or if they are indeed such brutes that it does not matter to them that their god is doing horrible things to others (an example of this can be found in William Lane Craig). You may not like what some of us say, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
***** An IQ does not protect one against stupidity. If only it did. The higher one's IQ, the faster one can solve certain problems, but it is just as with computers. A faster computer is not a smarter computer. The main difference between a fast computer and a slow one is that the fast one crashes faster and more often. The difference between a higher IQ and a lower IQ, is that the person with the higher IQ makes mistakes faster and more often.
Thagomizer You may doubt that. That is your right. However, just because you doubt something does not make it untrue. If you look a little further than your preconceptions, you will probably find out that atheists tend to be quite thorough. They need to be, because their position is a minority one. Being superficial doesn't work too well for minorities.
Or a liar or just brainwashed. As I said to my own people in a recent vid, one of the arguments to the Jesus divinity concept was that he couldn't have been a liar or a lunatic. Well, yes he could have and very easily. How many today claim supernatural occurrences? The entire Burpo family comes to mind with a now twenties man who still believes he went to heaven at four years old even though he never actually died. And how many follow this ministry? How many followed Joseph Smith's claim of being visited by the angel Moroni? He even had eleven signed signatures of witness of later seeing tablets, hearing supernatural voices and such. So no, Jesus and his disciples claming this and that don't mean much--and the fact we actually have no signed signatures of anything or any authorship of anyone else during Jesus life only makes the case look more and more like an urban legend. Cheers, DCF
Alister McGrath doesn't make much sense (12:30). "deep-seated fear of death" Why would anyone be afraid of death? Of *dying*, sure, that seems reasonable enough. One does not need an extraordinary imagination to imagine that this is not necessarily a very pleasant experience. But death?
MCGrath is so full of it. “Victory over death”- well, in the Christian view death is God’s punishment to Adam for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So death was created by God. So somehow God killing his son/himself is a victory over death? If death is defeated why is there still death? If sins are forgiven then is there technically still sin? It’s all just ludicrous nonsense
Jacob Milstead I haven't. I won't. He is not only wrong in his presentations, which would be forgivable, everybody makes mistakes, but he is also lying in his presentations, which is unforgivable. My life is too short to waste money and time on someone who is a demonstrable liar.
Jesus the Lunatic and Alister McGrath the liar. Once again, Alister McGrath lies through his teeth.This guy has studied at one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, and what do we get? Pseudo-intellectual dribble and plain lies. I don't get it. Does this individual actually believe what he says? I can't believe it. I enjoy Star Trek. Very much. But that doesn't make it true.
Calling names is usually a tactic used by people who have no rational counter-argument to offer. You can _assert_ that religions are untrue because God does not exist, but assertions are not arguments. I fail to see why your opinion on the matter should outweigh my own. (Let me just add, as a committed Christian, that I believe that it is impossible either to prove or to disprove the existence of God. But if you wish me to respect your choice to disbelieve, then you must respect my choice to believe.)
BigBen Hebdomadarius Simple. If one person asserts that her/his god exists, without bringing any valid argument, the other side has even more rights to claim the contrary. For a simple reason: there are many more gods that are claimed to exist, and most of the believers in them will affirm that the gods they do not believe in do not exist. In fact, if god-believers have one thing in common, it is their mutual claim of disbelief in each other's gods. When someone who does not believe in any god claims a particular god does not exist, that person is merely repeating what god-believers are already saying. I would also not know why my (or any other) opinion needs to be respected. That makes no sense whatsoever. People should be respected (and even then, only to a certain extent). Not opinions. I *accept* the truthfulness of your claim that you believe. I most definitely do not respect it. In fact, it makes me afraid of you. I should also add, that I do not disbelieve any god. That is not a reasonable standpoint, and it is one I am happy to leave to the god-believers. I do not believe any god exists, but I do not disbelieve any god. It is up to the believers to prove or at provide credible evidence that their respective god(s) exist(s). If they can't, their standpoint is unreasonable and should not only not be respected, it should be ridiculed.
Yiqing Wang Why do we go on roller coasters? We often stand in line longer to go on them than the ride itself takes. Yet, when it's over, it's over, it's meaningless. I compare life to a roller coaster ride. Once dead, it is all meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, slaughtering babies at birth or committing suicide when we become aware of the possibility will make no difference at all. However, while we are alive, we are capable of suffering and happiness. It is an incredible privilege for a collection of mindless particles to come together and form a conscious, living being. Why not enjoy it? The ride will be over soon enough. And then, why not attempt to help people attain a little happiness by combating the charlatans that are increasing their own happiness by manipulating others? McGrath lies to people, I do not consider this honourable, and if people believe him, it diminishes their potential to be happy. He deserves to be stopped.
Bart B. Van Bockstaele Well, if you don't want your opinion to be respected, far be it from me to oppose your wishes. I will simply assume, when I see your name on a comment from now on, that it will contain idiocy to which no one need pay any heed.
William Lain Craig and Alister McGrath are both wonderful well read speakers who know their subject. The moronic comments below come from those who seem unable to 'think' but prefer to denigrate those who think deeply about topics that they refuse to understand out of ignorance and ego. Hopefully one day they will all come to their senses.
Almost totally agree, except doesn’t WLC take a stance against homosexuality/exclude them from the kingdom? Or am I wrong here?
ruclips.net/video/y0Q0o5une8Y/видео.html can't really say this guy can't think
I really enjoyed this.
In my view and experience, what Alister McGrath speaks here, could hardly be stated more succinctly, more profoundly, more powerfully, and more poignantly.
I read a lot of comments to these sort of presentations. What I see from skeptics is a lot of name calling and assumptions masquerading as science. What I never see are reasonable answers to the truth claims presented in the videos. I mean, look at Jesus F. Christ's post and Bart B. Van Bockstaele's post. Is there anything at all except mud slinging and unsupported metaphysical presupposition there?
I doubt either of them listened to the whole thing, to be honest.
I think you are talking about answers you like, not reasonable answers. For example (33:24) when McGrath says that "Richard Dawkins says he is a tyrant. One answer might be that Richard Dawkins is talking about a god he has invented, rather than a god Christians actually know." McGrath is attempting to discredit Richard Dawkins' opinion, but he had already invalidated that opinion (33:00) with his claim that "the idea that we find in the old testament in psalm 23 is that of a god who journeys with us". You can't have it both ways. If you accept McGrath's claim, you also have to accept all the unnamable horrors this god is claimed to be responsible for by that very same old testament, The picture you then get, is that of Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Ze Dong, Stalin and Lenin and so many other people: they are comforting only to their followers and only for as long as they remain followers.
McGrath can only get away with his claim of "a god christians actually know" in contrast with Richard Dawkins' tyrant, if these christians choose to cherry pick their old testament (and the new one as well, actually) or if they are indeed such brutes that it does not matter to them that their god is doing horrible things to others (an example of this can be found in William Lane Craig).
You may not like what some of us say, but that doesn't make it unreasonable.
***** An IQ does not protect one against stupidity. If only it did. The higher one's IQ, the faster one can solve certain problems, but it is just as with computers. A faster computer is not a smarter computer. The main difference between a fast computer and a slow one is that the fast one crashes faster and more often. The difference between a higher IQ and a lower IQ, is that the person with the higher IQ makes mistakes faster and more often.
Thagomizer You may doubt that. That is your right. However, just because you doubt something does not make it untrue. If you look a little further than your preconceptions, you will probably find out that atheists tend to be quite thorough. They need to be, because their position is a minority one. Being superficial doesn't work too well for minorities.
19:54 is this not also what psychoanalytical discourse is about
Or a liar or just brainwashed. As I said to my own people in a recent vid, one of the arguments to the Jesus divinity concept was that he couldn't have been a liar or a lunatic. Well, yes he could have and very easily. How many today claim supernatural occurrences? The entire Burpo family comes to mind with a now twenties man who still believes he went to heaven at four years old even though he never actually died. And how many follow this ministry? How many followed Joseph Smith's claim of being visited by the angel Moroni? He even had eleven signed signatures of witness of later seeing tablets, hearing supernatural voices and such. So no, Jesus and his disciples claming this and that don't mean much--and the fact we actually have no signed signatures of anything or any authorship of anyone else during Jesus life only makes the case look more and more like an urban legend. Cheers, DCF
Alot of hot air,
Alister McGrath doesn't make much sense (12:30). "deep-seated fear of death" Why would anyone be afraid of death? Of *dying*, sure, that seems reasonable enough. One does not need an extraordinary imagination to imagine that this is not necessarily a very pleasant experience. But death?
I think Jim Jones was a more charismatic preacher.
MCGrath is so full of it. “Victory over death”- well, in the Christian view death is God’s punishment to Adam for eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So death was created by God. So somehow God killing his son/himself is a victory over death? If death is defeated why is there still death? If sins are forgiven then is there technically still sin? It’s all just ludicrous nonsense
Fatwah & judgement on the DSM by Christ, Jesus bleeds Mary weeps xXx
He's just a Sunday preacher, not an academic.
Really? users.ox.ac.uk/~mcgrath/Publications.pdf
Jacob Milstead He may be teaching at a university, he may be paid by a university, but he is not an academic. He is a storyteller, a charlatan.
Bart B. Van Bockstaele Absolutely.
Have either of you even read his work?
Jacob Milstead I haven't. I won't. He is not only wrong in his presentations, which would be forgivable, everybody makes mistakes, but he is also lying in his presentations, which is unforgivable. My life is too short to waste money and time on someone who is a demonstrable liar.
Jesus the Lunatic and Alister McGrath the liar. Once again, Alister McGrath lies through his teeth.This guy has studied at one of the most prestigious universities on the planet, and what do we get? Pseudo-intellectual dribble and plain lies.
I don't get it. Does this individual actually believe what he says? I can't believe it. I enjoy Star Trek. Very much. But that doesn't make it true.
Calling names is usually a tactic used by people who have no rational counter-argument to offer. You can _assert_ that religions are untrue because God does not exist, but assertions are not arguments. I fail to see why your opinion on the matter should outweigh my own. (Let me just add, as a committed Christian, that I believe that it is impossible either to prove or to disprove the existence of God. But if you wish me to respect your choice to disbelieve, then you must respect my choice to believe.)
BigBen Hebdomadarius Simple. If one person asserts that her/his god exists, without bringing any valid argument, the other side has even more rights to claim the contrary. For a simple reason: there are many more gods that are claimed to exist, and most of the believers in them will affirm that the gods they do not believe in do not exist. In fact, if god-believers have one thing in common, it is their mutual claim of disbelief in each other's gods. When someone who does not believe in any god claims a particular god does not exist, that person is merely repeating what god-believers are already saying.
I would also not know why my (or any other) opinion needs to be respected. That makes no sense whatsoever. People should be respected (and even then, only to a certain extent). Not opinions. I *accept* the truthfulness of your claim that you believe. I most definitely do not respect it. In fact, it makes me afraid of you.
I should also add, that I do not disbelieve any god. That is not a reasonable standpoint, and it is one I am happy to leave to the god-believers. I do not believe any god exists, but I do not disbelieve any god. It is up to the believers to prove or at provide credible evidence that their respective god(s) exist(s). If they can't, their standpoint is unreasonable and should not only not be respected, it should be ridiculed.
Yiqing Wang Why do we go on roller coasters? We often stand in line longer to go on them than the ride itself takes. Yet, when it's over, it's over, it's meaningless. I compare life to a roller coaster ride. Once dead, it is all meaningless. In the grand scheme of things, slaughtering babies at birth or committing suicide when we become aware of the possibility will make no difference at all. However, while we are alive, we are capable of suffering and happiness. It is an incredible privilege for a collection of mindless particles to come together and form a conscious, living being. Why not enjoy it? The ride will be over soon enough. And then, why not attempt to help people attain a little happiness by combating the charlatans that are increasing their own happiness by manipulating others? McGrath lies to people, I do not consider this honourable, and if people believe him, it diminishes their potential to be happy. He deserves to be stopped.
Bart B. Van Bockstaele Well, if you don't want your opinion to be respected, far be it from me to oppose your wishes. I will simply assume, when I see your name on a comment from now on, that it will contain idiocy to which no one need pay any heed.
+Bart B. Van Bockstaele
I think you should have stopped at "I don't get it". I think you passed that moment of truth without looking further into it.