tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post2252064362950693556..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Lawrence Krauss - Best of – Arguments and ComebacksUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-21221815535209556602015-04-21T15:48:38.469-05:002015-04-21T15:48:38.469-05:00Krauss exudes contempt and comes across as an oily...Krauss exudes contempt and comes across as an oily snake-oil salesman.<br /><br />I watched a brief segment where Craig calmly and methodically went about trying to pin Krauss down to Krauss's own statements. <br /><br />Krauss couldn't stand it, he bounced around, cut Craig off multiple times, threw out non sequiturs, and behaved boorishly. <br /><br />I watched a little more as Craig exposed his weak thinking, then I stopped.<br /><br />It wasn't a debate or discussion, it was Krauss acting like a spoiled brat in attempt to 'prove' just how much better he was than that stupid Christian. <br /><br />Krauss acts and sounds like a charlatan. I've seen it in others. The contempt hides a deep seated fear of being found out to not knowing what they claim to know. They won't, they can't, admit to being wrong and learn from that. So they hog the spotlight, let a torrent of words wash out, without any thought of what they had said before.<br />Russellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06204019386677018162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-78604584895222993142015-04-21T13:11:53.752-05:002015-04-21T13:11:53.752-05:00It appears fairly consistent that an Atheist's...It appears fairly consistent that an Atheist's thoughts and premises are never analyzed or commented on until one of two things happens. If the Atheist takes a position slightly out of the arrow of Atheist dogma, or the Atheist attacks one of the Atheist heros.<br /><br />What comes to mind first is when Antony Flew left Atheism, and was viciously attacked as a person - senile, incompetent, can't understand evolution - all Ad Hominems and none addressing his change of theoretical grounding. Second was the bizarre attacks on The Amazing Randi, when he commented on global warming in a semi-open minded fashion concerning the data, and was then banished from the kingdom until he hastily and publicly repented, begged for forgiveness, and belly-crawled back into dogmatic favor again. <br /><br />Highly respected Atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel endured the delegitimizing attacks after his book, "Mind and Cosmos", was published.<br /><br />Krauss is a warrior for Atheism. His attacks will not be analyzed by anyone who could be publicly delegitimized in the eyes of Atheist packs of jackals by issuing honest critiques.<br /><br />To be divested of your Atheist identity card is like losing your self altogether, if you are a Materialist Atheist by virtue of emotional neediness. And what Atheist is not?Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-73265025612911759372015-04-21T10:59:16.926-05:002015-04-21T10:59:16.926-05:00Stefani
I think Krauss meant Atheist logic as oppo...Stefani<br />I think Krauss meant Atheist logic as opposed to classic western logic.But yes,he does not seem to care that he contradicts himself and Materialism consistently.<br /><br />But what's even more bizzare than Krauss' rhetoric is that none of his fans and audiences will even dare to expose his illogic.Do they know and do they even care?<br />Atheists believe in certain premises but they reject their inevitable conclusions?<br />Human minds are nothing but atoms in a non-rational universe that should behave irrational too but for some inexplicable reason the human mind adheres to rational thought.<br /><br />Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-30941917025366483682015-04-21T07:10:46.383-05:002015-04-21T07:10:46.383-05:00@Phoenix: I missed that one. I've listened to ...@Phoenix: I missed that one. I've listened to several Craig debates, then stopped, since he basically presents the same argument in each. And since none of his opponents touched Craig's philosophical arguments, I moved on to other things.<br /><br />"And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical.At least it’s not classically logical."<br /><br />Now whatever could he mean by that? Surely he does not mean the universe does not behave in predictable ways, since he is a physicist, after all.<br /><br />But of course the universe isn't "logical", since logical is a function of a rational mind, which the universe certainly is not. To assert, on the other hand that logic cannot be applied to the universe to make sense it, would simply demolish the entire edifice on which his profession is built.<br /><br />Unless by "At least not classily logical" he means "we need different rules of logic than what classical philosophy provides", well, as Ricky Ricardo used to say, "He's got a lot a 'splainin' to do."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-3454261690304180152015-04-21T06:51:28.200-05:002015-04-21T06:51:28.200-05:00Guys,
Nice expansions on the article, and I'm...Guys, <br />Nice expansions on the article, and I'm glad to see other people are analyzing the likes of Krauss and his obvious narcissistic arrogance. His personal characteristics are telling... For example, he won't stop talking at the natural end of a sentence, so that he keeps control of the narrative for as long as possible. <br /><br />Excellent observations!Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-85934607311723277492015-04-21T03:17:19.336-05:002015-04-21T03:17:19.336-05:00Stefani
Remember the Craig vs Krauss debate where...Stefani<br /><br />Remember the Craig vs Krauss debate where he lambasted logic?Here it is again:<br /><br />http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-craig-krauss-debate-at-north-carolina-state-university<br /><br />Krauss:<i>Now the other thing that Dr. Craig has talked about is logic. And the interesting thing about the universe is it is not logical.At least it’s not classically logical</i>.<br /><br />Contrast those statements with this one:<br /><br />"<i>So rational thought applies to empirical evidence</i>."<br /><br />Krauss' blatant contradiction exposes him as an opportunist and not a truth-seeker.He will grab hold of any chance,even if it contradicts his position,to further his agenda.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35824032545783880012015-04-20T23:48:38.098-05:002015-04-20T23:48:38.098-05:00Part 4 just sounds so Kraussian, so in character f...Part 4 just sounds so Kraussian, so in character for a man who has a reputation for interrupting and talking over his opponents in debates. He simply enjoys hearing the sound of his own voice, and will engage his mouth before he's figured out what he wants to say.<br /><br />"So rational thought applies to empirical evidence."<br /><br />Yes, and so? Oh, I see. Rational thought and empirical evidence are in a monogamous relationship; therefore rational thought applies ONLY to empirical evidence. Ipso facto, non-empirical evidence (by which I suspect he means materialism) is not rational, because rational thought would never be unfaithful to his wedded spouse.<br /><br />Now if he could only produce the marriage certificate.<br /><br />"...there are many areas where science has little to say right now. But can I say that it will NEVER have anything to say about it? Absolutely not!"<br /><br />I like the implied supposition here: science has little to say about A now. But I can't say it will never have anything to say about A (because mumble-mumble-limits), therefore anyone else who thinks they have something to say about A should just sit down, shut up and wait for science to catch up. Because whatever science maybe-could-might-possibly-some-day have to say is sure to be more important (read: "more interesting to me") that whatever it is you wanted to say.<br /><br />But since physics is just a specialized branch of mathematics, I wonder a physicist goes about "measuring", oh, say, the number one. You know, without <i>using</i> the number one.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003124353591315236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-73433021226349059292015-04-20T09:03:37.771-05:002015-04-20T09:03:37.771-05:00Logic and philosophy was never Krauss' forte.
...Logic and philosophy was never Krauss' forte.<br />1.<i>Beliefs are not innocuous. Belief in things that aren’t true often results in actions that are often harmful</i>”.<br />Any action resulting from a belief (good or bad) is evidence against Materialism/Physicalism.Krauss implies the result is the effect and the belief is the cause.<br /><br />2.(a) <i>They were created by bronze age, or iron age peasants, who didn’t even know that the earth orbited the sun</i>...<br />Rejecting information because a)the authors were from a distant past and b) they did not know the earth rotates is fallacious reasoning to say the least.Using this reasoning we should reject Aristotle's logic because he fits the above criteria set by Krauss<br />===<br />2(b)A morality based on rationality and not outmoded religious belief<br />Krauss has yet to demonstrate that such rational morality can be exhibited by atoms,after all,that's all we (and nature) are.<br />===<br />3.<i>When you look at images like this, they inspire you, in ways like nothing else that I know of can inspire</i>.”<br />Under Materialism all behaviors are influenced deterministically.What exactly is the mechanism behind the picture that causes one to be creative?There should be a physical force causing such behaviors.It certainly cannot be gravity,weak and strong nucleur forces or the electromagentic force.<br /><br />4.Number 4 really exposes his dishonesty.He asserts there are things that science cannot measure,they're not empirically testable but yet they exist,and is supposed to be material (or not!).<br /><br />Anyway,just my 2 centsPhoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-84718487838589345672015-04-20T08:46:56.918-05:002015-04-20T08:46:56.918-05:00Nice one Stan,especially that last part in bold wh...Nice one Stan,especially that last part in bold where he contradicts himself wildly.Krauss is certain about one thing,and that is his many uncertainties.With so many paradoxes,we have no choice but to reject his entire article as illogical.Phoenixhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02173422646774264502noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59696637107481440472015-04-19T21:42:04.854-05:002015-04-19T21:42:04.854-05:00Krauss, like so many of his fellows, has an ego sw...Krauss, like so many of his fellows, has an ego swollen to the point where he can hold forth as an amateur philosopher and still keep a straight face.<br /><br />Swollen pride accounts for his being blithely unaware that he is, like Bill Nye and many others, spouting pseudo-rational claptrap.<br /><br />I can see Feynman even now, shaking his head in disgust.Steven Satakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03621308678106707775noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-59414573000377630132015-04-19T14:27:20.999-05:002015-04-19T14:27:20.999-05:00(TRIGGER WARNING: Those who are "sarcasm-impa...<b>(<i>TRIGGER WARNING</i>: Those who are "sarcasm-impaired" should avoid reading this comment.)</b><br /><br />Failure to understand and appreciate the sheer brilliance of Herr Professor Krauss is necessary and sufficient "evidence" (physical evidence, of course) that he is "BRIGHT" and you are not. So don't you look foolish and ignorant in comparison by daring to question the superior brain (no evidence of a mind nor the capacity to think rationally without self-contradiction) of Herr Professor Krauss? You should instead be totally warmed by the fire of his convictions of the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, because there is no PHYSICAL evidence for anything absolutely true!<br /><br />Na-na-na-na-fou-fou!<br /><br />A massive case of premature intellectualization!<br />Robert Coblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12427520849707914818noreply@blogger.com